SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ankit Jain And Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 8 March, 2017

CRM No.M-116 of 2017                                                         1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                           CHANDIGARH

                                              Crl. Misc. No. M- 116 of 2017(OM)
                                                Date of Decision: March 8 , 2017.

Ankit Jain and others                   ...... PETITIONER(s)

             Versus

State of Punjab and another             ...... RESPONDENT (s)


CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:     Mr. Matinder Brar, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Rajpreet Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.

             Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.
                          *****

LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.251 dated

27.06.2015, under Sections 498A/406/506/354/34 IPC, registered at Police

Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak and all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom on the basis of a compromise dated 16.07.2016 (Annexure P2)

arrived at between the parties.

The abovesaid FIR was registered on the basis of an application

submitted by respondent No.2. FIR No.251 dated 27.06.2015 was a fallout of

matrimonial discord between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. With the

intervention of respectables and relatives, a compromise has been arrived at

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2017 03:41:47 :::
CRM No.M-116 of 2017 2

between the parties, the terms of which were reduced in writing on 16.07.2016.

The parties wish to live in peace and harmony and put an end to the acrimony

between them. It is submitted that petition under Section 13B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the parties has been allowed on 24.01.2017.

This Court on 10.01.2017 directed the parties to appear before

learned trial court on 20.02.2017 for getting their statements recorded 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 any of the petitioners are absconding/proclaimed offenders

and whether any other case is pending against them. Information was also

sought as to whether all affected persons are a party to the settlement.

Pursuant to order dated 10.01.2017, the parties appeared before the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak and their statements were

recorded on 20.02.2017. Respondent No.2 i.e., the complainant made a

statement to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties

on 16.07.2016. The settlement has been arrived at out of her own free will and

consent without any kind of threat or pressure. She stated that petitions filed by

her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as under the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have been withdrawn by her. Divorce by mutual

consent has been granted by the learned District Judge (Family Court), Rohtak

on 24.01.2017. Respondent No.2 has stated that she has no objection to the

quashing of the abovesaid FIR qua all the accused-petitioners. Statement of

petitioner No.1 and joint statement of petitioners No.2 to 4 in respect to the

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2017 03:41:48 :::
CRM No.M-116 of 2017 3

settlement were recorded.

As per report dated 21.02.2017 received from the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Rohtak it is opined that the compromise arrived at

between the parties is genuine. It has been arrived at between the parties out of

their free will and volition without any coercion or undue influence. None of

the petitioners are reported to be proclaimed offenders neither any such

proceedings are pending against the parties. The statements of the parties have

been appended alongwith the said report.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reaffirms and verifies the

factum of settlement between the parties as well as the facts as narrated above.

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

abovementioned FIR against all the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Sajjan

Kumar, submits that as the abovesaid FIR arises out of a matrimonial dispute,

the State has no objection to the quashing of this FIR 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

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2017 03:41:48 :::
CRM No.M-116 of 2017 4

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 continuing the present proceedings. It will only lead to

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

This petition is, thus, allowed and FIR No.251 dated 27.06.2015,

under Sections 498A/406/506/354/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Shivaji

Colony, Rohtak alongwith all consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed.



                                                        ( LISA GILL )
March 8 , 2017.                                             JUDGE
'om'

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




                                     4 of 4
                  ::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2017 03:41:48 :::
 

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