SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sandeep Gandhi vs State Of Haryana And Another on 16 May, 2019

C.R.M-M No.15540-2019 (OM) -1-

269 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

C.R.M-M No.15540 of 2019 (OM)
Date of Decision : 16.05.2019

Sandeep Gandhi …… Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana anr. …… Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

***

Present: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. B.S.Dhull, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

***

AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing of FIR No.0069 dated 04.02.2019 under Section 406 IPC at Police

Station Surajkund, District Faridabad and all other consequential

proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise effected between

the parties.

On 04.04.2019 the following order was passed :-

“The present petition has been filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No.0069 dated 4.2.2019
registered under Sections 406 IPC at Police Station Surajkund,
District Faridabad and all other consequential proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of compromise effected between
the parties.

1 of 3
10-06-2019 05:35:37 :::
C.R.M-M No.15540-2019 (OM) -2-

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court Mr. Gaurav Bansal, AAG,
Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 and
Mr. B.S.Dhull, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of
the respondent No.2.

Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply requisite
copy of the paper book to the opposite parties during the
course of the day.

To come up on 16.5.2019. Meanwhile, the parties are
directed to be present before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court
on 25.4.2019 or on any other date convenient to the Court for
recording their statements with regard to compromise. The
Court is directed to record the statements of both the parties to
its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are
not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The
Court is further directed to send report along with the
statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of
the compromise effected between the parties and also intimate
whether any criminal case and proclamation proceedings is
pending against either of the parties before the next date of
hearing.”

Thereafter, the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Faridabad dated 09.05.2019 has been received wherein it has been

mentioned that :-

“……………In the considered opinion of the undersigned the
compromise so effected is for the amicable settlement of the
dispute and was effected without any external pressure,
coercion or force. Said compromise appears to be genuine.

XXX
It is further submitted that report from SHO/Investigation
Officer has also been called, who reported that “no criminal

2 of 3
10-06-2019 05:35:37 :::
C.R.M-M No.15540-2019 (OM) -3-

case and proclamation proceedings is pending against either
of the parties.”

Learned State counsel on instructions from Investigating

Officer has also accepted this fact.

The Supreme Court in SectionGian Singh v. State of Punjab

and another reported as 2012(4) RCR(Criminal) 543 has discussed in

detail the inherent powers of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding

or FIR or complaint where the parties have entered into compromise except

the cases which involve offences such as murder, rape dacoity etc. as such

offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.

In view of the above judicial pronouncement, I am of the

considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings between the

parties would be an abuse of the process of law and the present compromise

is for their benefit and will bring peace and harmony between them.

Consequently, this petition is allowed and the above said FIR

and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua

petitioner.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending Criminal

Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

( AJAY TEWARI )
16.05.2019 JUDGE
Pooja sharma-I
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
10-06-2019 05:35:37 :::

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