Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Bhagat And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 December, 2022
CRM-M-23445-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(308)
CRM-M-23445-2022-
Date of Decision:- 05.12.2022
Ram Bhagat and another ...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Gaurav Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana for State-respondent No.1.
Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate for complainant-respondent No.2.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
On 26.05.2022, this Court passed the following order:-
"Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR
No.78 dated 03.10.2016 under Sections 34, 406, 498-A
and 506 of IPC, 1860, registered at Women Police Station,
Jind, Annexure P-1, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom including final report dated
07.11.2016, Annexure P-2, on the basis of compromise
deed, Annexure P-3.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner No.1 is the the husband and petitioner No.2 is
the mother-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2. He
submits that FIR, Annexure P-1, is an outcome of a trivial
matrimonial issue, which has been resolved by virtue of
compromise, Annexure P-3, and the couple is staying
together.
Notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Ms. Mahima Yashpal,
DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent
No.1-State. As per instructions received by her from L/ASI
Geeta, she submits that challan has been presented and
charge has been framed against both the petitioners.
1 of 3
Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on
behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 and has filed
her Vakalatnama in Court, which is taken on record. She
admits the factum of compromise and does not dispute the
statement made by counsel for the petitioner.
The parties and Investigating Officer are
directed to appear before the Area Magistrate/Trial Court
on 11.07.2022 or on any date thereafter as fixed by the
trial court, for getting their statements recorded with
regard to the compromise. The Area Magistrate/Trial
Court shall submit a report on or before the next date of
hearing specifying the following:-
1. the number of accused arraigned in the FIR
and how many have appeared before it and have
made statements and whether any accused is
absconding/P.O. in the case; 2. the name of the
complainant and injured/aggrieved and whether
all of them have appeared and made their
statements in support of the compromise;
3. the stage of trial/proceedings;
4. if the compromise is genuine, voluntary and
out of free will of the parties.
5. whether any other criminal case is pending
against the accused.
Report of Area Magistrate/Trial Court be
awaited for 18.08.2022."
Pursuant to the above reproduced order, report has been received
from the Trial Court and its relevant extract is as under:-
"From the statement of the parties including
complainant, accused and IO, I am satisfied that the
compromise entered between the parties is genuine,
voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.
The compromise is not result of any fraud or
misrepresentation and it is the result of free will of the
parties. The case is at the stage of prosecution evidence.
The challan has been presented against accused Ram
Bhagat and Savitri Devi. Wazir and Sushil were named in
FIR, but the challan has not bene filed against them as they
were found innocent by the police. Accused Ram Bhagat
and Savitri Devi have been charged under Section 498-A,
406, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. As per IO, accused in
the present case are Ram Bhagat and Savitri Devi. No
accused is absconding/PO in the present case. The
complainant is Kanta and there is no other injured or
victim. No other case is pending against present accused."
2 of 3
Reply by way of an affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Jind-Headquarters, District Jind has been filed on behalf of State-
respondent No.1, which is taken on record.
Keeping in view the fact that the matrimonial dispute has been
amicably settled and couple is living together, this Court is of the view that
keeping the criminal proceedings alive will not serve any purpose.
In view the above developments, report of the Trial Court and the
judgments of Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others Versus State of
Haryana and another (2003) 2 RCR (Criminal) 888 and Parbatbhai
Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Versus State of
Gujarat and another (2017) 9 SCC 641, this Court has no hesitation in
quashing the criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.78 dated 03.10.2016
under Sections 34, 406, 498-A and 506 of IPC, 1860, registered at Women
Police Station, Jind, Annexure P-1, along with all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
05.12.2022
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
