SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Roktim Mahanta And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 20 July, 2018

CRM-M- No. 38756 of 2017 1


CRM-M- No. 38756 of 2017
DATE OF DECISION :- July 20, 2018

Roktim Mahanta and others …Petitioners


State of Haryana and another …Respondents


Present:- Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.


Petitioners – Roktim Mahanda and others have brought the instant

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 174 dated

30.8.2016, for offences under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC, registered at Police

Station Women Sector 51, Gurgaon against them, alongwith consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, stated to have been

effected between them and complainant Mona Mahanta- arrayed as respondent


The marriage between the spouses has been dissolved by a decree

of divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act on 20.2.2018.

According to the State counsel, a cancellation report has been prepared which

is yet to be filed in the Court.

When the petition came up for hearing on 13.10.2017, notice of

motion was ordered to be issued. The respondent No. 1 – State of Haryana

1 of 3
24-07-2018 08:30:59 :::
CRM-M- No. 38756 of 2017 2

through State counsel had put in appearance. Then in light of the contention

that parties have since effected compromise, they were directed to put in

appearance before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements

recorded with regard to compromise and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was

directed to send a report to this Court.

Report has been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Gurugram, in terms of which complainant Mona Mahanta and accused,

namely, Roktim Mahanta, Bijita Mahanta, Rajshree Mahanta and Bharti

Mahanta had appeared there and their statements were recorded, in terms of

which they have admitted to have entered into a voluntary compromise, with

free will, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. Further

complainant has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is

quashed by this Court. There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of

the compromise so arrived at between the parties. It has been reported that no

accused has been declared proclaimed offender in the FIR in question.

Alongwith the report statement of the complainant and all the accused, in

original, have been annexed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State

counsel, besides going through the record.

The dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably,

which appears to have been arrived at between them voluntarily without any

threat or coercion and in terms of ratio of the authority reported as Kulwinder

Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal)

1052, where in para 28, it has been held as under :-

2 of 3
24-07-2018 08:31:00 :::
CRM-M- No. 38756 of 2017 3

“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 Cr.P.C. 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”.”

It has been observed that High Court has power to quash prosecution

in order to achieve ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law.

Though such powers are unlimited but those are to be exercised sparingly and

with utmost care and caution. Though there is no statutory bar which can effect

the inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The compromise is in interest of peace and tranquility in the society

and for such like reasons this Court can quash the FIR and ancillary

proceedings exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears to be a fit

case to exercise such powers.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the abovesaid FIR alongwith

ancillary proceedings are hereby quashed.

July 20, 2018

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
24-07-2018 08:31:00 :::

Leave a Reply

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

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