Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Kumar Alias Vinnie Beniwal vs State Of Haryana on 8 March, 2022
CRM-M-23642-2021 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(239-3)
CRM-M-23642-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 08.03.2022
Vinod Kumar @ Vinnie Beniwal ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Sushil Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, AAG, Haryana
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Munish Raj Chauhdary, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
Heard through video conferencing.
CRM-8233-2022
For the reasons given in the application, it is allowed.
Judgment and decree dated 08.11.2021 passed under Section 13-
B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sirsa
is taken on record as Annexure P-14.
CRM-M-23642-2021
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of impugned order dated
20.07.2010, Annexure P-2, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
1 of 3
CRM-M-23642-2021 (O&M) -2-
Sirsa by which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender in
FIR No.237 dated 11.04.2009, registered for offences under Sections 498-
A, 406, 506, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station
City Sirsa, District Sirsa, Annexure P-1, along with all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated
20.04.2021, Annexure P-8, as well as affidavits dated 20.04.2021,
Annexures P-9 and P-10, respectively arrived at between the parties.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has
been declared as proclaimed offender without complying the provisions of
Section 82, Cr.P.C, but the dispute between the parties has been settled, the
FIR has been quashed and the petitioner has deposited the costs.
Upon instructions received from ASI, Jagmeet Singh, State
counsel submits that the petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant,
was declared a proclaimed offender, after investigation, final report has
been presented against the in-laws of the complainant, who have been tried
and acquitted vide judgment dated 08.05.2015. An appeal against the said
judgment has been dismissed.
Counsel representing the complainant-respondent No.2 does not
have any objection in case the impugned order dated 20.07.2010, Annexure
P-2, is quashed in view of the settlement.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The sole objective of Section 82 of the Code is to secure the
presence of the absconding accused before the Court. FIR has emanated
from a matrimonial dispute, which has been amicably settled, the accused-
petitioner and the complainant have appeared and their statements have
2 of 3
CRM-M-23642-2021 (O&M) -3-
been recorded before the Trial Court. On the basis of the report received
from the Trial Court, FIR, Annexure P-1, has been quashed qua the
petitioner by an order passed on even date in the connected petition.
Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order
deserved to be set aside.
Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.07.2010, Annexure
P-2, whereby the petitioner has been declared to be a proclaimed offender,
along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, if any, are
quashed.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
08.03.2022
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
