Jitender Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 12268 P&H

CRM-M-15583 of 2021                                             {1}


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

289                                       CRM-M-15583 of 2021
                                          Date of decision:27.09.2022


Jitender Kumar                                 ... Petitioner

                           Vs.


State of Haryana and another                   ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present:-    Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Gurbir S. Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.

             Mr. S.K.Tripathi, 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.175 dated 23.07.2014

registered for offences under Sections 312, 354, 377, 406, 498-A, 506, 34 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Bawal, District Rewari

(Annexure P-1), alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on

the basis of compromise.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of the

petitioner was solemnized with the complainant-respondent No.2 on

04.11.2009 and there is no issue out of the wedlock. He submits that due to

temperamental differences, parties started residing separately from

1 of 4

CRM-M-15583 of 2021 {2}

December, 2015 and despite efforts by well-wishers, marriage could not be

saved. Counsel submits that FIR (Annexure P-1), which is an outcome of

bitterness and acrimony between the parties, has been settled as is apparent

from the joint statement of the parties recorded in the petition filed under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Counsel submits that

marriage has been dissolved vide judgment and decree passed by mutual

consent on 30.09.2021 (Annexure P-8) and the entire permanent alimony of

Rs.30.00 lacs has been paid. Still further, he submits that although various

allegations were levelled against the petitioner, but charge was framed

against him under Sections 406, 498-A IPC.

Upon instructions received from ASI Mamta, State counsel

submits that prosecution has concluded its evidence and the trial is fixed for

examination of defence witnesses.

Counsel representing the complainant-respondent No.2 has

admitted the factum of compromise and does not controvert the statement

made by counsel for the petitioner.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Vide order dated 19.04.2021, this Court directed the parties to

appear before the Trial Court for recording of their statements and a report

was called for regarding authenticity of the compromise, as also as to

whether any other person, besides the petitioner, is involved. State was also

directed to get instructions regarding antecedents of the petitioner. Report

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

"Perusal of the statements of both the parties reflects

2 of 4

CRM-M-15583 of 2021 {3}

that they have entered into compromise voluntarily and without

any pressure or influence from any side. Compromise entered

into between the parties is genuine.

It is also reported that the complainant submitted that

the consent of her father is required for compromise. Perusal

of the file shows that the father of the complainant is also

witness in the present case and therefore, the statement of the

father of the complainant has also been recorded.

It is further reported that as per the Investigating

Officer, there is no other criminal case pending against the

petitioner."

It is evident from the above that FIR (Annexure P-1) is a fallout

of matrimonial dispute, which has been settled amicably and marriage has

been dissolved.

In view of the above facts, report of the Trial Court and the

judgment of Supreme Court in Gold Quest International Private Limited

Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2014) 15 SCC 235 and Parbatbhai

Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Versus State

of Gujarat and another (2017) 9 SCC 641, this Court is of the opinion that

keeping the criminal proceedings alive would not serve any purpose, rather

setting them aside would enable the parties to lead a peaceful life.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.175 dated

23.07.2014 registered for offences under Sections 312, 354, 377, 406, 498-

3 of 4

CRM-M-15583 of 2021 {4}

A, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Bawal, District

Rewari (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,

are quashed qua the petitioner.

                                                      (SUVIR SEHGAL)
September 27, 2022                                        JUDGE
savita

Whether Speaking/Reasoned                                  Yes
Whether Reportable                                         Yes




                               4 of 4