Manish Goyal And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3013 P&H

CRM-M No.16554 of 2021(O&M)                                                -1-

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

                                       CRM-M No.16554 of 2021(O&M)
                                       Date of Decision:25.10.2021
                                       (Heard through VC)


Manish Goyal and others                                         ...Petitioners

                                       Vs

State of Haryana and another                                .   ..Respondents


CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:    Mr. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

            Mr. K.L. Saini, Advocate
            for respondent No.2.

            *****

JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL)

CRM Mo.34507 of 2021

Prayer in the application is for preponement of the hearing of the

main case, which is now fixed for 01.11.2021 and placing on record judgment

and decree dated 02.09.2021 (Annexure P-5).

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

The hearing of the main case is hereby preponed and same is

taken up for hearing today itself. Annexure P-5 is taken on record.

CRM-M No.16554 of 2021

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.10 dated 15.02.2020

registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 Indian Penal Code (Sections

354, 377, 34 IPC deleted in report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.) at Women

1 of 3

Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Annexure P-1) and all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated

09.03.2021 (Annexure P-2).

2. The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant on

the allegations of harassment and ill-treatment at the hands of accused-

petitioners on account of demand 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.

3. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that in fact the matter

has already been investigated and challan stands presented wherein Sections

354, 377, 34 IPC stands deleted. It is submitted that on account of

compromise, the parties have already obtained a decree of divorce under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein all payments have already

been made pertaining to maintenance, future maintenance and permanent

alimony.

4. 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 Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Bahadurgarh stating that the compromise arrived at

between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the

same is genuine one.

5. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana on instructions

from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the respondent No.2

admit the factum of compromise. Learned counsel for the respondent-State

submits that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State

2 of 3

would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR, in view of the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record.

7. 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 conviction are bleak.

8. 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.10 dated 15.02.2020

registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 Indian Penal Code (Sections

354, 377, 34 IPC deleted in report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.) at Women

Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent

proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua petitioners.

                                               (JAISHREE THAKUR)
                                                      JUDGE
October 25, 2021
P.Bhatt
                   Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No

                   Whether reportable                Yes/No




                                      3 of 3