Rajiv Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 12007 P&H

CRM-M-17466 of 2019                                          {1}


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

266                                       CRM-M-17466 of 2019
                                          Date of decision:22.09.2022


Rajiv Kumar and another                        ... Petitioners

                           Vs.

State of Haryana and another                   ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present:-    Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Sunil Kumar Goswami, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.60 dated 29.01.2015

registered for offences under Sections 498, 323, 406, 506 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860, at Police Station Jind City, District Jind (Annexure P-1),

alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of

panchayati compromise dated 09.05.2018 (Annexure P-3).

Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the

husband and petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law of the complainant-

respondent No.2. He submits that marriage of petitioner No.1 was

solemnized with the complainant-respondent No.2 on 28.02.2008 at Jind

and a son was born out of the wedlock. Counsel submits that due to

1 of 4

CRM-M-17466 of 2019 {2}

temperamental differences, parties could not pull along and have been living

separately since September, 2013. He submits that FIR (Annexure P-1), is

fallout of a marital discord, which has been settled by virtue of panchayati

compromise (Annexure P-3). He submits that in terms of the settlement,

marriage has been dissolved by judgment and decree passed on 29.11.2018

(Annexure P-10). Still further, he submits that all the terms of the

compromise have been complied with, an amount of Rs.4.50 lacs has been

paid and a plot measuring 150 square yards has been transferred in the name

of the complainant-respondent No.2 vide sale deed, Annexure P-8. He

submits that all litigation pending inter se parties has been withdrawn

except for an FIR, which has been quashed by an order passed on even date.

Upon instructions received from ASI Rajbir, State counsel

submits that although there were number of persons were named as accused,

but on conclusion of investigation, final report has been presented against

the two accused-petitioners. Still further, she submits that charge has been

framed and prosecution evidence is underway.

Counsel representing the complainant-respondent No.2 has

admitted the factum of compromise as well as statement made by counsel

for the petitioners. He submits that in terms of the compromise, custody of

the minor child is with the complainant-respondent No.2.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Vide order dated 03.09.2019, this Court directed the parties to

appear before the Area Magistrate for recording of their statements and a

report was called for regarding genuineness of the compromise.

                               2 of 4

 CRM-M-17466 of 2019                                       {3}

Report has been received and its relevant extract is as under:-

1. Both the petitioner/accused i.e. Tilak Ram and Rajiv Kumar

appeared before the Court of undersigned on 16.09.2019 to get

their statement recorded. Complainant/respondent No.2-

Poonam Devi and her father-Ishwar Singh appeared on

18.09.2019 to get their statement recorded.

2. The separate statements of complainant-Poonam Rani and

her father-Ishwar Singh and joint statement of accused-Tilak

Ram and Rajiv Kumar recorded qua the compromise as per the

directions of Hon'ble High Court. The statements were

recorded after ensuring that the parties to the case were

deposing voluntarily and without any pressure, coercion or

undue influence. The parties have stated that they have

compromised the matter voluntarily vide a panchayati

settlement dated 09.05.2018 (copy Mark-A). The parties have

duly identified by their counsels. It transpires that the alleged

compromise is free from any undue influence or pressure. The

complainant seems to have expectations from the accused that

the accused will also help the complainant party to get an

another FIR No.863/2017, P.S.City, Jind quashed from the

Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in pursuance of the

Panchayati settlement dated 09.05.2018."

It is evident from the above that FIR (Annexure P-1), is an

outcome of a matrimonial dispute, which has been settled amicably.

                              3 of 4

 CRM-M-17466 of 2019                                       {4}

In view of the above development, 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, petition is allowed. FIR No.60 dated 29.01.2015

registered for offences under Sections 498, 323, 406, 506 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860, at Police Station Jind City, District Jind (Annexure P-1)

alongwith all consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioners.

                                                      (SUVIR SEHGAL)
September 22, 2022                                        JUDGE
savita

Whether Speaking/Reasoned                                  Yes
Whether Reportable                                         Yes




                               4 of 4