SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 8 January, 2020

Crl. Misc. M- 18659-2019 (OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. M- 18659-2019 (OM)
Date of Decision: January 08, 2020

Sanjeev Kumar
…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

…Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Mr. Imran Farooqi, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Trishanjali Chopra, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Parmod Kumar, Advocate for
for the respondent No.2-complainant.

Complainant in person.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

This is a petition that has been filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.194 dated

08.06.2016 registered under Sections 324, 354, 406, 498A, 506 and 120-B

of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula

(Annexure P/1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of

the compromise/report of the Mediation Centre dated 29.11.2018 (Annexure

P/2).

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant-

Taruna on the allegations that the accused-petitioner harassed and tortured

1 of 3
12-01-2020 06:50:42 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 18659-2019 (OM) -2-

the complainant for want of dowry. Now with the intervention of

respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the

parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a

compromise, they were directed to appear before the trial court/Illaqa

Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in support of the

compromise. In pursuance of the direction, a report has been received from

Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Kalka, stating that the compromise

arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any

one and the same is genuine one. Complainant present in Court admits to

have received the balance amount. Her statement to that effect has been

recorded separately.

Learned Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions

from the Investigating Officer and submits that in case the parties have

indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the

quashing of the FIR, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record.

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a

loser. Rather, a compromise not only brings peace and harmony between

the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After

considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that

both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal

prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate

2 of 3
12-01-2020 06:50:43 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 18659-2019 (OM) -3-

conviction are bleak.

Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has

been amicably settled and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and

another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, this petition is allowed and FIR No.194 dated

08.06.2016 registered under Sections 324, 354, 406, 498A, 506 and 120-B

of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula and all

subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

January 08, 2020 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
seema JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
12-01-2020 06:50:43 :::

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