SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jitender And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 8 May, 2018

CRM No.M-5415-2018
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

282
Criminal Misc. No. M-5415-2018
Date of Decision: May 08, 2018.

JITENDER AND ANR. …… PETITIONERS

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR …… RESPONDENTS

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Neeraj Januha, Advocate for
Ms. Ashima Mor, Advocate,
for the petitioners.

Mr. Ashok S.Chaudhary, Addl.AG, Haryana.

Mr. P.S. Sullar, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No.2.

*****
LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.27 dated 01.04.2016

under Sections 34, 376, 420, 498-A, 506 of IPC registered at Police Station

Narnaul, District Mahendergarh and all other consequential proceedings arising

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

It is contended that the abovesaid FIR was registered at the instance

of respondent No.2 due to matrimonial discord with her husband i.e., petitioner

No. 2. No offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is made out against

petitioner No. 1 as the FIR was lodged, primarily due to matrimonial discord

between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2. Moreover, the matter has been

amicably resolved between the parties. Petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2

1 of 4
20-05-2018 01:23:52 :::
CRM No.M-5415-2018
-2-

have resumed matrimonial ties. Parties wish to live in peace and harmony.

Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2

reiterate that petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 have resumed matrimonial

ties and are living together in the matrimonial home.

This Court on 09.02.2018 directed the parties to appear before

learned trial court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements in respect to

the above-mentioned compromise. Learned trial court/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 trial court/Illaqa

Magistrate 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 09.02.2018, the parties appeared before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul and their statements were recorded

on 15.03.2018. Respondent No.2 stated that the matter has been amicably

resolved with both the petitioners out of her own free will without any pressure,

undue influence, coercion, inducement or threat and has no grievance against the

petitioners. Respondent No.2 further stated that she has no objection in case the

abovesaid FIR against both the accused/petitioners is quashed. Joint statement of

the petitioners in respect to the settlement was recorded as well.

As per report dated 21.03.2018 received from the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Narnaul, it is opined that compromise between the parties is

genuine and voluntary, arrived at without any coercion, pressure or undue

2 of 4
20-05-2018 01:23:53 :::
CRM No.M-5415-2018
-3-

influence. It is noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul that the

Public Prosecutor stated before the court that Section 376 IPC is an offence

against the State but he has not expressed any doubt regarding the genuineness of

settlement between the parties. None of the petitioners are reported to be

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

report.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reaffirms and verifies the

factual position as above. It is reiterated that respondent No.2 has no objection in

case the abovementioned FIR is quashed subject to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Muni Devi,

affirms and verifies that the parties are living together in the matrimonial home

and expressed no serious 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.

Normally, this Court would hesitate to interfere in a petition for

quashing of FIR under Section 376 IPC on the basis of compromise. However,

keeping in view the fact that the present FIR was lodged due to matrimonial

discord between respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 and now the parties have

settled the matter. Matrimonial ties have been resumed. It is not in dispute that

they are living in the matrimonial home in peace and harmony. Therefore,

continuance of proceedings would amount to denial of complete justice to 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:-

3 of 4
20-05-2018 01:23:53 :::
CRM No.M-5415-2018
-4-

“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.27 dated 01.04.2016

under Sections 34, 376, 420, 498-A, 506 of IPC registered at Police Station

Narnaul, District Mahendergarh alongwith all consequential proceedings are,

hereby, quashed.

However, liberty is afforded to respondent No.2 to file necessary

application for revival of the proceedings in the above said FIR, in case the terms

and conditions of settlement between the parties are not adhered to by the

petitioner(s) or it is found that the settlement was a mere ruse to have the

aforesaid FIR quashed.

(LISA GILL)
May 08, 2018 JUDGE
jyoti-3

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

4 of 4
20-05-2018 01:23:53 :::

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