SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nitin And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Another on 12 March, 2020

331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-48325 of 2019.
Decided on:- March 12, 2020.

Nitin and others
………Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and another
………Respondents.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.
*****
Present:- Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Ms. Ruchika Sabharwal, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for
Mr. Ramanpreet Kora, 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.93 dated 04.12.2018 under Sections 323, 498-A and 406

read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Women West

Gurugram, District Gurugram (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom on the basis of settlement dated 19.12.2018 (Annexure P-3)

arrived at Counselling Cell, Family Courts, North, Rohini, Delhi.

This Court vide order dated 14.11.2019 had directed the parties

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

statements recorded with regard to compromise and the Court was directed to

send its report qua genuineness of the compromise.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioners as well as

respondent No.2 have appeared before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Gurugram and got their statements recorded on 17.12.2019. On the basis of

1 of 4
22-03-2020 04:47:59 :::
CRM-M-48325 of 2019 -2-

the statements so recorded by the parties, learned Magistrate has submitted

report dated 21.12.2019 to the effect that the parties have compromised the

matter with their free will and full senses so that they may live in peace and

harmony and to avoid any future conflict/enmity between them. The

compromise between the parties appears to be genuine and valid.

The FIR in question has been recorded on the basis of statement

of respondent No.2-complainant Rita. She has already made a statement

before learned Magistrate in support of the compromise. Her statement so

recorded by learned Magistrate on 17.12.2019 reads 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 before the Hon’ble High Court in the petition
under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR by the accused
Nitin, Rakesh and Omvati. Also a petition under section 13 B of
Hindu Marriage Act was filed by both the parties in the Court of
Sh. M.R. Sethi, Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini, Delhi and
decree of divorce has already been obtained on dated 7.9.2019
and DV Act case filed by me against Nitin and his family
members has also been withdrawn by me from the court of
Sh. Naveen Kumar, JMIC, Gurugram on dated 4.4.2019. I had
also filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C in the court of Sh. Sudhir
Parmar, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram
and the same has been withdrawn by me on dated 2.4.2019.
Accused Nitin had also filed petition under section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act in the court of Sh. R.P. Pandey, Principal Judge,
Family Court, Rohini, Delhi and the same has also been
dismissed as withdrawn 8.1.2019.

2 of 4
22-03-2020 04:47:59 :::
CRM-M-48325 of 2019 -3-

As per the terms and conditions of compromise deed,
today I have received a DD no.692607 dated 21.10.2019
amounting Rs.two lacs in my name as full and final remaining
amount as per the settlement deed and thus all the permanent
alimony amount has been received by me from the accused Nitin.

In lieu of amicable settlement, I am not willing to pursue
the FIR no.93/2018 under sections 498A, 323, 406, 34 of IPC
registered at Police Station Women West, Gurugram. I have no
objection, if the aforesaid FIR no.93/2018 and the proceedings
pending before Criminal Court Gurugram thereof are quashed. I
have wilfully 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 counsel for the petitioners states that apart from the fact

that the matter has been compromised between the parties, the marriage

between petitioner No.1 Nitin and respondent No.2 Rita has already been

dissolved under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide judgment

and decree dated 07.09.2019 passed by the Family Court, Rohini, Delhi.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute the

aforesaid fact.

Learned State counsel also does not dispute the factum of

compromise between the parties.

In view of the above, continuation of the proceedings before the

trial Court in the instant FIR qua the petitioners shall be an abuse of the

process of law.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gold Quest International Private

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

3 of 4
22-03-2020 04:47:59 :::
CRM-M-48325 of 2019 -4-

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

or 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 Article 226 of the Constitution.

Thus, following the principles laid down by the Full Bench

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

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

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

(2012) 10 SCC 303 as well as the law laid down in Gold Quest International

Private Limited’s case (supra), the present petition is allowed and the FIR

No.93 dated 04.12.2018 under Sections 323, 498-A and 406 read with Section

34 IPC registered at Police Station Women West Gurugram, District

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

are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of settlement dated 19.12.2018

(Annexure P-3) arrived at Counselling Cell, Family Courts, North, Rohini,

Delhi, however, subject to payment of total costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by

the petitioners to the Poor Patients’ Welfare Fund of the Postgraduate Institute

of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh within a period

of one month from today.

(HARI PAL VERMA)
March 12, 2020 JUDGE
Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No

4 of 4
22-03-2020 04:47:59 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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