SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Akant Malhotra vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 30 November, 2017

CRM No.M-16480 of 2017


Criminal Misc. No. M- 16480 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: November 30 , 2017.

Akant Malhotra …… PETITIONER(s)


State of Haryana and another …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

None for respondent No.2.


Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.386 dated

01.06.2015 under Sections 406/323/498A/506 IPC, registered at Police Station

Karnal Civil Lines, District Karnal 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., the petitioner. With the

intervention of respectables and relatives, a compromise was arrived at between

the parties, the terms of which were reduced into writing on 01.05.2017

(Annexure P2). The parties decided to part ways.

Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that petition under

1 of 4
02-12-2017 06:08:38 :::
CRM No.M-16480 of 2017

Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the petitioner and

respondent No.2 has since been allowed on 26.10.2017. The entire settled

amount has been handed over by the petitioner to respondent No.2.

This Court on 23.05.2017 directed the parties to appear before

learned trial court for recording their statements in respect to the above-

mentioned compromise. Learned trial court 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 trial court was also directed to intimate whether the

petitioner is absconding/proclaimed offender and whether any other case is

pending against him. Information was sought as to whether all affected persons

are a party to the settlement.

Pursuant to order dated 23.05.2017, the parties appeared before the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal and their statements were

recorded on 15.07.2017. Respondent No.2 stated that she has compromised the

matter with the petitioner out of her own free will, without any kind of pressure

or coercion. It is further submitted by respondent No.2 that she no longer wishes

to continue with the present proceedings and she has no objection in case the

abovesaid FIR against the accused petitioner is quashed. Statement of the

petitioner in respect to the settlement was recorded as well.

As per report dated 18.07.2017 received from the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Karnal, it is opined that compromise between the parties

is genuine, arrived at out their free will without any pressure or undue influence.

The petitioner, who is the sole accused in this case, is not reported to be a

proclaimed offender. Statements of the parties are appended alongwith the said

2 of 4
02-12-2017 06:08:39 :::
CRM No.M-16480 of 2017


Mr. Sunil Rana, Advocate had appeared on behalf of respondent

No.2 before this Court on 23.05.2017 and affirmed and verified the factum of

settlement between the parties.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Ram Niwas,

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


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. 386 dated 01.06.2015

under Sections 406/323/498A/506 IPC, registered at Police Station Karnal Civil

3 of 4
02-12-2017 06:08:39 :::
CRM No.M-16480 of 2017

Lines, District Karnal alongwith all consequential proceedings are, hereby,


November 30 , 2017. JUDGE

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

4 of 4
02-12-2017 06:08:39 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation