Vikram Shokeen And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 19 September, 2017

CRM No.M-16907 of 2017 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. M- 16907 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: September 19 , 2017.

Vikram Shokeen and another …… PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and another …… RESPONDENT (s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No.2.
*****

LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.543 dated

05.11.2011 under Sections 498A/406/506/494/34 IPC registered at Police

Station Sector 7, Faridabad and all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.

The abovesaid FIR was registered at the instance of respondent

No.2 due to matrimonial discord with her husband i.e., petitioner No.1. The co-

accused in this case i.e., the parents-in-law of respondent No.2, were acquitted

of the charges against them by the learned trial court. Appeal preferred by the

complainant/respondent No.2 against the said decision has since been

1 of 5
20-09-2017 01:44:39 :::
CRM No.M-16907 of 2017 [2]

withdrawn by her on 27.02.2017 in view of the compromise arrived at between

the parties. Look-out notice, it is submitted, was issued qua both the petitioners

as they were in Australia.

With the intervention of respectables and relatives, a compromise

was arrived at between the parties. It is informed that petition under Section

13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the ‘HMA’) filed by petitioner

No.1 and respondent No.2 has since been allowed on 28.08.2017. The entire

settled amount has been handed over to respondent No.2. Photocopy of

judgment and decree dated 28.08.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Faridabad, produced in Court today, is taken on record subject to

just exceptions.

This Court on 14.07.2017 directed the parties to appear before

learned Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements in respect to the above-

mentioned compromise. Liberty was afforded to petitioner No.2 to have his

statement recorded in respect to the settlement through Surender Singh Shokeen

his power of attorney holder i.e., his father. Learned Illaqa Magistrate was

directed to submit a report regarding the genuineness of the compromise, as to

whether it has been arrived at out of the free will and volition of the parties

without any coercion, fear or undue influence. Learned Illaqa Magistrate was

also directed to intimate whether any of the petitioners are

absconding/proclaimed offenders and whether any other case is pending against

them. Information was sought as to whether all affected persons are a party to

the settlement.

Pursuant to order dated 14.07.2017, the parties appeared before the

2 of 5
20-09-2017 01:44:40 :::
CRM No.M-16907 of 2017 [3]

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad and their statements were

recorded on 28.08.2017. Respondent No.2 stated that with the intervention of

respectable persons of society, she has compromised the matter with the accused

persons out of her own free will without any fear or pressure. The terms and

conditions of the settlement were reduced into writing on 27.02.2017. The

settlement has been arrived at without any coercion, inducement or threat from

any quarter. Mention has been made regarding filing of petition under Section

13B HMA. It is further stated that she received a part of the settled amount in

terms of the settlement and rest of the amount would be received by her at the

time of recording of statements of the parties at second motion in the abovesaid

petition. She further reveals that appeal preferred by her against acquittal of her

parents-in-law has since been withdrawn by her. Respondent No.2 further

stated that she has no objection in case the abovesaid FIR is quashed against

both the accused petitioners. Joint statement of petitioner No.1 as well as

petitioner No.2 (through his power of attorney i.e. his father) in respect to the

settlement were recorded as well.

As per report dated 28.08.2017 received from the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Faridabad, it is opined that compromise between the

parties is genuine and valid, arrived at between them voluntarily without any

coercion or undue influence. It is mentioned that there are four accused in this

case including the present petitioners. The co-accused i.e., parents-in-law of the

complainant, namely, Surender Singh Shokeen and Smt. Vedwati were acquitted

of the charges vide judgment dated 15.10.2015. None of the petitioners are

reported to be proclaimed offenders. Statements of the parties are appended

3 of 5
20-09-2017 01:44:40 :::
CRM No.M-16907 of 2017 [4]

alongwith the said report.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reaffirms and verifies the

factum of settlement between the parties including receipt of the entire settled

amount. It is reiterated that respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of

the abovementioned FIR against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the State submits that as the abovesaid FIR

arises out of a matrimonial dispute, the State has no objection to the quashing of

the FIR in question as well as all consequential proceedings on the basis of a

settlement arrived at between the parties.

In Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and

another 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, a five member Bench of this Court

has observed as under:-

“The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of
harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the
power under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is used
to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social
amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of

Haryana, 2003(4) SCC 675 has observed that it becomes the duty of the Court

to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it would

be in the interest of justice to quash the abovesaid FIR as no useful purpose

would be served by continuance of the present proceedings. It will merely lead

to wastage of precious time of the court and would be an exercise in futility.

This petition is, thus, allowed and FIR No.543 dated 05.11.2011

4 of 5
20-09-2017 01:44:40 :::
CRM No.M-16907 of 2017 [5]

under Sections 498A/406/506/494/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 7,

Faridabad alongwith all consequential proceedings including look-out notice

issued against both the petitioners are, hereby, quashed.

( LISA GILL )
September 19 , 2017. JUDGE
‘om’

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

5 of 5
20-09-2017 01:44:40 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *