Ankur Sachdeva And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7540 P&H

CRM-M-47393-2018 (O & M)                                         -1-

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

236+112                          CRM-M-47393-2018 (O & M)
                                 Date of decision:22.07.2022

Ankur Sachdeva and others                             ... Petitioners
                                Vs.
State of Haryana and another                          ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present: Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

          Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG, Haryana.

          Mr. M. K. Bali, Advocate for
          Mr. Sajid Waseem, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                    ***

SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)

CRM-24832-2022

Allowed as prayed for.

Judgment and decree dated 16.03.2019 dissolving the marriage

by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is

taken on record as Annexure P-6.

Main Case

At the outset, counsel for the petitioners submits that as

petitioners No.2 to 4 have been found innocent, he seeks and is granted

permission to withdraw the petition qua them.

Dismissed as withdrawn insofar as petitioners No.2 to 4 are

concerned.

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for

quashing of FIR No.560 dated 25.09.2016 under Sections 498-A, 323 and

406 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District

Jhajjar, Annexure P-1, on the basis of compromise.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that marriage of petitioner

1 of 3

CRM-M-47393-2018 (O & M) -2-

No.1 was solemnized with the complainant/respondent No.2 on 17.01.2016

and a daughter was born out of the wedlock. He submits that due to

temperamental differences, parties could not pull along and have been

living separately since 19.07.2016. He submits that the matrimonial dispute

has been settled by virtue of compromise, which is reflected in the petition

filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as well as in the

statements of the parties recorded before the Family Court. Still further, he

submits that marriage has been dissolved by mutual consent vide judgment

and decree, Annexure P-6. By referring to the opening paragraph of the

judgment, Annexure P-6, he submits that the custody of the child has been

given by the parents to the Child Welfare Committee, Jhajjar.

Upon instructions from ASI Wazir Singh, State counsel submits

that although all the four petitioners were named as accused but on

conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against petitioner No.1

alone and charge has been framed against him under Sections 498-A and

406 of IPC. As per her instructions, no prosecution witness has been

examined.

Counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 admits the factum

of compromise and does not controvert the statement made by counsel for

the petitioners.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Vide order dated 14.10.2019, this Court directed the parties to

appear before the Trial Court and get their statements recorded in support of

the compromise. A report was called for, which has been received and its

relevant extract is reproduced as under:-

"(a) Whether the compromise is genuine and voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

In this regard, it is submitted that as per the

2 of 3

CRM-M-47393-2018 (O & M) -3-

satisfaction of the undersigned, the compromise as effected between the parties is not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. All the parties have suffered their separate statements regarding the compromise voluntarily.

(b) Whether any accused is proclaimed offender.

In this respect, it is submitted that report from SHO, Police Station City, Bahadurgarh was sought on 24.10.2019 and the same was filed on 07.11.2019. As per SHO report, none of the petitioner is declared proclaimed offender."

It is apparent that FIR, Annexure P-1, is an outcome of a

matrimonial dispute, which has been settled and marriage has been

dissolved.

In view of the above facts, report of the trial court as well as the

judgments of the Supreme Court in Gold Quest International Private

Limited Versus The State of Tamil Nadu and others (2014) 15 SCC 235

and Ramgopal and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh 2021

(4) RCR (Criminal) 322, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of

the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. FIR No.560 dated 25.09.2016

under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police

Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Annexure P-1, and all the

consequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua petitioner No.1.

22.07.2022                                          (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal                                                 JUDGE
          Whether Speaking/Reasoned              Yes/No
          Whether Reportable                     Yes/No




                                  3 of 3