IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No.M-30628 of 2019 (OM)
Date of Decision: 01.10.2019
The State of Haryana another
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
Present:- Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Shiva khurmi, 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.122 dated 08.05.2016 under Sections 323, Section406, Section498A,
Section354, Section506 and Section34 IPC registered at Police Station, Old Faridabad, District
Faridabad and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise/joint statements (Annexures P-4 and P-5).
This Court vide order 19.07.2019 had directed the parties to
appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court to get their statements
recorded with regard to compromise so arrived and learned Illaqa
Magistrate/Trial Court was directed to submit its report regarding the
1 of 3
06-10-2019 16:06:23 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-30628 of 2019 -2-
genuineness of the compromise so effected on the basis of statements so
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the parties have appeared
before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and got their statements
recorded. Learned Magistrate has forwarded his report dated 14.08.2019 to
the effect that the compromise and settlement arrived at between the two
sides is genuine, voluntary and without any threat pressure or undue
influence. The joint statement of the complainant along with other family
reads as under:-
“Stated that we have mutually compromised the dispute
with our own wish and consent and without any pressure. We
have left no grudges with each other. We do not want to
proceed further the present case.
Complainant 1 and 2 has obtained divorce from
accused No.1 and 2 and they have re-married and have no
objection to quash the present FIR/proceedings”.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf
of respondent no.2-complainant has not disputed the factum of compromise
between the parties.
Learned State counsel also does not dispute the factum of
compromise effected between the parties.
There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of the
compromise, as arrived between the parties. Thus, no useful purpose would
be served to continue with the proceedings in the instant FIR.
Hon’ble the Apex Court in SectionGold Quest International Private
Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2014(4) RCR (Criminal) 206
has held that the disputes which are substantially matrimonial in nature, or
2 of 3
06-10-2019 16:06:24 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M-30628 of 2019 -3-
the civil property disputes with criminal facets, if the parties have entered
into settlement, and it has become clear that there are no chances of
conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings under Section
482 Cr.P.C read with SectionArticle 226 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, following the principles laid down by the Full
Bench judgment of this Court in SectionKulwinder Singh and others v. State of
Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1252 (PH), as approved
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SectionGian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
others, (2012)12 SCC 303, this petition is allowed and FIR No.122 dated
08.05.2016 under Sections 323, Section406, Section498A, Section354, Section506 and Section34 IPC registered
at Police Station, Old Faridabad, District Faridabad and the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis
of compromise/joint statements (Annexures P-4 and P-5).
October 01, 2019 ( HARI PAL VERMA )
Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
3 of 3
06-10-2019 16:06:24 :::