SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 28 January, 2020

263
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-37452 of 2019.
Decided on:- January 28, 2020.

Pawan Kumar.
………Petitioner.
Versus

State of Haryana and another
………Respondents.

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

*****

Present:- Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, A.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Suresh Kalia, Advocate for
Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No.2-complainant.

HARI PAL VERMA, J. (Oral)

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

quashing of FIR No.1225 dated 21.11.2016 under Sections 323, 406 and

498-A read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Gurgaon City,

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

therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.03.2019 and 29.03.2019

(Annexure P-2) (colly).

This Court vide order dated September 06, 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.

1 of 4
30-01-2020 00:32:06 :::
CRM-M-37452 of 2019 -2-

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the parties had appeared before

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

recorded on 31.10.2019. On the basis of the statements so recorded by the

parties, learned Magistrate has submitted the report dated 14.11.2019 to the

effect that the compromise is genuine and valid.

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

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

learned Magistrate in support of compromise on 31.10.2019, the relevant part

of which reads as under:

“In lieu of amicable settlement, I am not willing to pursue
the FIR No.1225/16 under sections 498A, 323, 406 of IPC
registered at Police Station Gurugram City. I have no objection,
if the aforesaid FIR no.1225/2016 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 petitioner states that apart from the fact

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

between the petitioner and respondent No.2 has already been dissolved by a

decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by

way of mutual consent vide judgment and decree dated 22.07.2019 passed by

the family Court, North-West, Rohini, Delhi.

This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent

No.2-complainant.

2 of 4
30-01-2020 00:32:06 :::
CRM-M-37452 of 2019 -3-

Learned State counsel has also not disputed the factum of

compromise effected between the parties.

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

trial Court in the instant FIR qua the petitioner 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)

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.1225 dated 21.11.2016 under Sections 323, 406 and 498-A read with

Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Gurgaon City, District Gurugram

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

qua the petitioner on the basis of compromise dated 16.03.2019 and

29.03.2019 (Annexure P-2) (colly), however, subject to payment of costs of

Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Poor Patients’ Welfare Fund of

3 of 4
30-01-2020 00:32:06 :::
CRM-M-37452 of 2019 -4-

the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER),

Chandigarh within a period of one month from today.

(HARI PAL VERMA)
January 28, 2020 JUDGE
Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes

Whether Reportable: No

4 of 4
30-01-2020 00:32:06 :::

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