CRM No.M-16907 of 2017 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 16907 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: September 19 , 2017.
Vikram Shokeen and another …… PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another …… RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No.2.
*****
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.543 dated
05.11.2011 under Sections 498A/406/506/494/34 IPC registered at Police
Station Sector 7, Faridabad and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.
The abovesaid FIR was registered at the instance of respondent
No.2 due to matrimonial discord with her husband i.e., petitioner No.1. The co-
accused in this case i.e., the parents-in-law of respondent No.2, were acquitted
of the charges against them by the learned trial court. Appeal preferred by the
complainant/respondent No.2 against the said decision has since been
1 of 5
20-09-2017 01:44:39 :::
CRM No.M-16907 of 2017 [2]
withdrawn by her on 27.02.2017 in view of the compromise arrived at between
the parties. Look-out notice, it is submitted, was issued qua both the petitioners
as they were in Australia.
With the intervention of respectables and relatives, a compromise
was arrived at between the parties. It is informed that petition under Section
13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the ‘HMA’) filed by petitioner
No.1 and respondent No.2 has since been allowed on 28.08.2017. The entire
settled amount has been handed over to respondent No.2. Photocopy of
judgment and decree dated 28.08.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Faridabad, produced in Court today, is taken on record subject to
just exceptions.
This Court on 14.07.2017 directed the parties to appear before
learned Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements in respect to the above-
mentioned compromise. Liberty was afforded to petitioner No.2 to have his
statement recorded in respect to the settlement through Surender Singh Shokeen
his power of attorney holder i.e., his father. Learned Illaqa Magistrate was
directed to submit a report regarding the genuineness of the compromise, as to
whether it has been arrived at out of the free will and volition of the parties
without any coercion, fear or undue influence. Learned Illaqa Magistrate was
also directed to intimate whether any of the petitioners are
absconding/proclaimed offenders and whether any other case is pending against
them. Information was sought as to whether all affected persons are a party to
the settlement.
Pursuant to order dated 14.07.2017, the parties appeared before the
2 of 5
20-09-2017 01:44:40 :::
CRM No.M-16907 of 2017 [3]
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad and their statements were
recorded on 28.08.2017. Respondent No.2 stated that with the intervention of
respectable persons of society, she has compromised the matter with the accused
persons out of her own free will without any fear or pressure. The terms and
conditions of the settlement were reduced into writing on 27.02.2017. The
settlement has been arrived at without any coercion, inducement or threat from
any quarter. Mention has been made regarding filing of petition under Section
13B HMA. It is further stated that she received a part of the settled amount in
terms of the settlement and rest of the amount would be received by her at the
time of recording of statements of the parties at second motion in the abovesaid
petition. She further reveals that appeal preferred by her against acquittal of her
parents-in-law has since been withdrawn by her. Respondent No.2 further
stated that she has no objection in case the abovesaid FIR is quashed against
both the accused petitioners. Joint statement of petitioner No.1 as well as
petitioner No.2 (through his power of attorney i.e. his father) in respect to the
settlement were recorded as well.
As per report dated 28.08.2017 received from the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Faridabad, it is opined that compromise between the
parties is genuine and valid, arrived at between them voluntarily without any
coercion or undue influence. It is mentioned that there are four accused in this
case including the present petitioners. The co-accused i.e., parents-in-law of the
complainant, namely, Surender Singh Shokeen and Smt. Vedwati were acquitted
of the charges vide judgment dated 15.10.2015. None of the petitioners are
reported to be proclaimed offenders. Statements of the parties are appended
3 of 5
20-09-2017 01:44:40 :::
CRM No.M-16907 of 2017 [4]
alongwith the said report.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reaffirms and verifies the
factum of settlement between the parties including receipt of the entire settled
amount. It is reiterated that respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of
the abovementioned FIR against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the State submits that as the abovesaid FIR
arises out of a matrimonial dispute, the State has no objection to the quashing of
the FIR in question as well as all consequential proceedings on the basis of a
settlement arrived at between the parties.
In Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and
another 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, a five member Bench of this Court
has observed as under:-
“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 Criminal Procedure Code 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”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of
Haryana, 2003(4) SCC 675 has observed that it becomes the duty of the Court
to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it would
be in the interest of justice to quash the abovesaid FIR as no useful purpose
would be served by continuance of the present proceedings. It will merely lead
to wastage of precious time of the court and would be an exercise in futility.
This petition is, thus, allowed and FIR No.543 dated 05.11.2011
4 of 5
20-09-2017 01:44:40 :::
CRM No.M-16907 of 2017 [5]
under Sections 498A/406/506/494/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 7,
Faridabad alongwith all consequential proceedings including look-out notice
issued against both the petitioners are, hereby, quashed.
( LISA GILL )
September 19 , 2017. JUDGE
‘om’
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
20-09-2017 01:44:40 :::
