Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 11 July, 2022
CRM-M-5115-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
264 CRM-M-5115-2022
Date of decision:11.07.2022
Pawan Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. Vikram Bishnoi, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No.2.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
On 08.02.2022, this Court passed the following order:-
"Heard through video conferencing.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of
FIR No.112 dated 28.08.2018 under Sections 498-
A/323/406/506/34 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police
Station Women Narnaul, District Mahendergarh,
Annexure P-1, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
affidavit dated 26.01.2022, Annexure P-2.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the
complainant/respondent No.2 on 24.01.2011 and
there is no issue out of the wedlock. He submits that
due to some trivial issues, FIR, Annexure P-1, was
lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2, but the
misunderstanding between the parties has been
removed and both the parties are residing together
under one roof in U.S.A. as is apparent from
affidavit, Annexure P-2, executed by the
complainant/respondent No.2.
Notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Ms. Mahima
Yashpal, DAG, Haryana, who is present through
1 of 4
video conferencing, accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.1-State. As per instructions received
by her from L/ASI Kusum Lata, challan has been
presented, charge has been framed and some
prosecution witnesses have been examined. Mr.
Vikram Bishnoi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf
of the complainant/respondent No.2. He admits the
factum of compromise as well as statement made by
counsel for the petitioner.
The parties and Investigating Officer are
directed to appear before the Illaqa
Magistrate/Trial Court on 19.04.2022 or any date
thereafter as fixed by the trial court, for getting their
statements recorded with regard to the compromise.
The Illaqa 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 Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court be
awaited for 11.07.2022.
Since both the parties are residents of
United States of America, the Trial Court shall
record their statements through the medium of video
conferencing. The parties will be identified before
the Trial Court by their respective counsel.
Necessary arrangements will be made for video
conferencing by the Court concerned."
Report has been received from the trial court in deference to
the above-said reproduced order and its relevant extract is as under:-
"In pursuance of said order dated
08.02.2022 of Hon'ble High Court passed in CRM-
M-5115-2022 titled as Pawan Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana and another, I have the honour to submit
that notices were issued to the Investigating Officer
as well as parties through their counsels to appear
before the Court (being Illaqua Magistrate) for
2 of 4
recording their statements with regard to
compromise/settlement. Upon notice, on 19.04.2022
Investigating Officer SI Sharda Devi No.421
appeared and vide a separate recorded statement
submitted that in the present case there is only one
accused namely Pawan son of Umed and as per his
investigation and record, there is no other criminal
case pending against accused Pawan.
It is further pertinent to mention that on
19.04.2022 the complainant Jyoti, alongwith above
named accused Pawan Kumar, both duly identified
by Sh.K.S. Yadav, and Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocates
(both complainant and accused residents of United
States of America appeared before the Court
through video conferencing) made joint statement
before the Court regarding compromise, in
pursuance of above noted order of Hon'ble High
Court. Accordingly, the statement of complainant
Jyoti alongwith accused Pawan Kumar, who were
duly identified by their counsels, was recorded
wherein it was submitted by the complainant as well
as by the accused that they have compromised the
matter and residing together since December 2019
in USA. They also stated that there was no threat,
pressure or coercion on them at the time of reaching
the said compromise. In the given circumstances, the
compromise reached between the complainant Jyoti
and the accused Pawan Kumar appears to be
genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or
undue influence. The statements of complainant
Jyoti, accused Pawan Kumar, Investigating Officer
in original are attached herewith.
It is also pertinent to mention here that the
present case is at the stage of prosecution evidence
and there is only one accused in the present case
and no one is absconding/proclaimed person in
present case."
Status report by way of an affidavit of Additional
Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh has
been filed on behalf of respondent No.1-State, which is taken on record.
State counsel submits that challan has been presented against the
accused-petitioner, charge has been framed against him under Sections
498-A, 323, 406 and 506 of IPC and prosecution evidence is underway.
3 of 4
After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that FIR has emanated from a matrimonial dispute between the parties,
which has been amicably settled and the couple is living together. In
view of the above development, report of the trial court and judgments of
the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot versus State of Punjab
(2008) 4 SCC 582 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
FIR, Annexure P-1.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. FIR No.112 dated 28.08.2018
under Sections 498-A/323/406/506/34 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police
Station Women Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Annexure P-1, and all
the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the
petitioner.
11.07.2022 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
