SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amit Hooda And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 February, 2020

CRM-M-41557-2019 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

286 CRM-M-41557-2019
Date of Decision:24.02.2020

Amit Hooda and others …..Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another …..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.

Present: Mr. Parveen Kaushik, Advocate,
for the petitioners.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. N.K. Ganga, Advocate for
Mr. Gagandeep Rana, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.

****

HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for

quashing of FIR No.58 dated 07.03.2015 under Sections 406, 498-A, 506,

34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-17/18, District Gurgaon

(Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on

the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 11.09.2019(Annexure P-2).

This Court vide order dated 26.09.2019 had directed the parties

to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court to get their statements

recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the

genuineness of the compromise.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram and got their statements

1 of 4
15-03-2020 01:08:15 :::
CRM-M-41557-2019 2

recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has

submitted report dated 15.01.2020 to the effect that the parties have

compromised the matter with their free will and full senses and the same

appears to be genuine and valid.

Respondent No.2-complainant, namely, Preeti, has made a

statement with regard to compromise before learned Magistrate on

30.10.2019. The same is reproduced as under:-

“Stated that an amicable settlement has been effected upon the
intervention of the respectable members of society and
relatives and all the disputes have been amicably resolved and
now there is no ill-will between us. A settlement deed had
already been filed by Amit and his family members before the
Hon’ble High Court in the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.
for quashing the FIR. Moreover, the petition under Section
125 Cr.P.C. filed by me against Amit Hooda has already been
dismissed as withdrawn from the respective court of Ms.
Suruchi Atreja, Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gurugram and DV Act case filed by me against Amit Hooda
and my family members has also been withdrawn from the
court of Ms. Suyasha Jawa, JMIC, Gurugram with mutual
consent of both the parties. Whereas, accused Amit Hooda had
also filed the application under section 127(2) CrPC against
me and the same has also been dismissed as withdrawn from
the Court of Sh. R.K. Jain, Ld.Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gurugram and also petition under section 10 of
Hindu Marriage Act against me was filed by Amit Hooda
and the same was also dismissed as withdrawn from the family
court of Sh. R.K. Jain, Ld. Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gurugram with mutual consent of both
parties. Also a petition under section 13 B of Hindu
Marriage Act filed by me against Amit Hooda of which decree
of mutual divorce has been passed on 18.10.2019 by court of
Ms.Suruchi Atreja, Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family
2 of 4
15-03-2020 01:08:16 :::
CRM-M-41557-2019 3

Court, Gurugram.

Also one more case State Vs. Amit FIR 335/2017 PS
Civil Lines Rohtak under section 323, 354 and 506 IPC is
pending for 12.12.2019 in the Court of Sh. Ashish Sharma,
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Rohtak filed by me against
Amit and Sumit Hooda, however compromise has been held in
between the parties and statement of compromise is to be
recorded in that case.

In lieu of amicable settlement, I am not willing to pursue
the FIR no.58/15 dated 7.3.2015 under sections 498A, 506, 34
of IPC registered at Police Station Sec 17/18, Gurugram. I
have no objection, if the aforesaid FIR no.58/2015 and the
proceedings pending before Criminal Court Gurugram thereof
are quashed. I have willfully given my statement without any
force, pressure or coercion whatsoever. Further stated that
there is no other complainant or affected aggrieved party other
than me in the arrayed in the petition.”

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent

No.2 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties.

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to

continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant F.I.R.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gold Quest International Private

Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu and others-2014 (4) RCR (Criminal)

206 has held that when the disputes are substantially matrimonial in nature,

or are civil property disputes with criminal facets, if the parties enter into a

settlement, and it becomes clear that there are no chances of conviction,

there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Thus, following the principles laid down by the Full Bench

judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of

3 of 4
15-03-2020 01:08:16 :::
CRM-M-41557-2019 4

Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, as approved by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others

(2012) 10 SCC 303 also, in the light of Gold Quest International Private

Limited’s case (supra), this petition is allowed and FIR No.58 dated

07.03.2015 under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police

Station Sector-17/18, District Gurgaon(Annexure P-1) and all the

consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the

petitioners on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 11.09.2019(Annexure

P-2), subject to payment of costs of `15,000/- to be paid by the petitioners,

within a period of one month from today with the Pandit Bhagwat Dayal

Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak and the

said amount would be spent for the treatment of poor patients within the

knowledge of its Director.

February 24, 2020 (HARI PAL VERMA)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

4 of 4
15-03-2020 01:08:16 :::

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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