Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harman Pahwa And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 9 November, 2022
CRM-M-34540-2020 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
271+122 CRM-M-34540-2020 (O & M)
Date of decision:09.11.2022
Harman Pahwa and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
CRM-42531-2022
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Judgment and decree dated 19.01.2021 passed under Section
13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is taken on record as Annexure
P-7.
Main Case
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No.30 dated 04.02.2017 under Sections 323, 34, 406,
498-A and 506 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Taraori, District
Karnal, Annexure P-1, alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of statement dated 03.10.2019, Annexure P-2,
and compromise dated 17.10.2020, Annexure P-3, arrived at between the
parties.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the
husband and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of
complainant/respondent No.2. He submits that marriage of petitioner
1 of 3
CRM-M-34540-2020 (O & M) -2-
No.1 was solemnized with the complainant/respondent No.2 on
02.05.2015 and a son was born out of the wedlock. He submits that FIR,
Annexure P-1, is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute, which has been
settled by way of compromise, which is reflected in complainant's
affidavit, Annexure P-3. Counsel submits that in terms of the
compromise, entire permanent alimony of Rs.2.20 lac has been paid,
marriage has been dissolved by judgment and decree, Annexure P-7, and
the custody of the minor child is to remain with complainant/respondent
No.2. Still further, by making a reference to affidavits dated 01.12.2020
and 05.12.2020, Annexures P-5 and P-6, respectively, filed by petitioner
No.1 and complainant/respondent No.2, during the pendency of the
instant petition, counsel submits that both have deposed that the rights of
the minor child available to him under the law would not be affected on
account of the compromise.
Upon instructions from SI Rohtash, State counsel submits that
trial is underway and some prosecution witnesses have been examined.
Counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 admits the
factum of compromise and supports the prayer made in the petition.
Heard counsel for the parties.
Vide order dated 17.12.2020, this Court directed the parties to
appear before the Trial Court for recording of their statements and a
report was called for, which has been received and its relevant extract is
as under:-
"1. Statement of accused Harman,
Amarjeet, Saroj Arora and complainant Chinki
(Annexure-1) has been recorded on solemn
affirmation in which they stated that they have
compromised the matter with each other voluntarily
and without any fear or pressure.
2 of 3
CRM-M-34540-2020 (O & M) -3-
2. After careful perusal of the statement
given on solemn affirmation by the complainant as
well as accused concerning the present case and
after careful analysis of the same, this court is
convinced that the compromise between the parties
in question is genuine and no such material is
available on record which can reflect that the
compromise has been effected under fear, threat,
pressure or coercion. They also stated that
compromise dated 17.10.2020 has been complied.
Therefore, this court is of the thoughtful opinion that
the available material on record is in favour to
reflect a valid compromise between the parties.
3. No one is proclaimed
offender/absconding in the present case.
4. Further, as per affidavits submitted by
accused persons, there are no other criminal
proceedings pending against them."
As FIR, Annexure P-1, is a fallout of a matrimonial dispute,
which has been amicably settled and marriage has been dissolved, this
Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings would
not serve any purpose. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Ramgopal and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 322, this Court has no hesitation in exercising its
inherent powers and quashing the criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. FIR No.30 dated 04.02.2017
under Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A and 506 of IPC, 1860, registered at
Police Station Taraori, District Karnal, Annexure P-1, and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners.
09.11.2022 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
