Sumit And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 12358 P&H

129+293     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                CRM-35970-2022 in/and
                                                CRM-M-46471-2021
                                                Date of decision: 28.09.2022


SUMIT AND ANR.                                               ...PETITIONERS

                                          VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.                                    ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI

Present:    Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate
            for the applicant/petitioner.

            Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
            ****

VIVEK PURI,J. (ORAL)

CRM-35970-2022

This is an application for placing on record the receipt as Annexure

A-1 and order as Annexure A-2.

It has been stated that a sum of Rs.5,000/- is stated to have been

deposited and thereafter, the statements of the parties have been recorded.

CRM application is disposed of and Annexures A-1 and A-2 are

taken on record.

Main case

Petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR

No.21 dated 09.03.2021 under Sections 498-A/34/506/313 IPC, registered at

Women Police Station, Manesar, District Gurugram and all the consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.

On 29.04.2022, parties were directed to appear before the

Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate and get their statements recorded with regard to the

1 of 4

CRM-35970-2022 in/and -2-

CRM-M-46471-2021

compromise arrived at between them.

The trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the

concerned and send its report regarding genuineness and voluntary nature of the

compromise.

In compliance of the order dated 29.04.2022, learned Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Gurugram has recorded the statements of the parties

and submitted the report, the relevant para whereof reads as under:-

"(1) There are 2 accused persons named in the FIR namely.

(i) Geeta wife of Mahipal

(ii) Sumit son of Mahipal residents of 1006, Gali No.2 near Panchayat Ghar, Rajaukri, South Avenue, New Delhi, India.

(2) There is no accused declared proclaimed offender in this FIR.

(3) With regard to compromise, statements of the parties have been recorded in the Court on 24.05.2022 and from the statements of the parties, the compromise appears to be genuine, voluntary, without any undue influence. (4) As per statement of the Investigating Officer L/ASI Reena, the accused are not involved in any other FIR. (5) As per statement of the Investigating Officer L/ASI Reena, there is no other complainant/victim except Sonia in the FIR. Both the accused and victim/complainant are party to the compromise."

Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the marriage of

petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 24.11.2019 but no child

has been born from the wedlock. The matrimonial dispute has been amicably

settled between the parties in terms of compromise dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure

P-2). The marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by

a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act

in terms of judgment and decree dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned

Family Court, Gurugram. A sum of Rs.16,50,000/- has been paid on account of

2 of 4

CRM-35970-2022 in/and -3-

CRM-M-46471-2021

permanent alimony to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has also received all

her articles of Istri Dhan. No other case is pending between the parties.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that he has no objection

if FIR is quashed.

When the parties were directed to get the statements to be recorded

in terms of order dated 15.11.2021, it was also observed that the question of

imposition of cost for wasting valuable time of police as well as the Court will be

assessed at the time of final hearing of present petition, in case the FIR is to be

quashed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through

the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case

for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., so

as to secure the ends of justice because the parties have arrived at a settlement,

out of the Court, by way of compromise. The compromise is without any

pressure and a genuine one. In such a situation, continuation of the prosecution

would result in sheer abuse of process of law.

The controversy in the instant case does not indicate that the same

involves heinous or serious offences and furthermore, the matrimonial dispute

has been sought to be amicably settled. Consequently, a deserving case is made

out where the court should exercise the power to secure the ends of justice.

For the aforesaid view, this Court finds support from Kulwinder

Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal)

1052, upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and

others (2012) 10 SCC 303.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the ends of

3 of 4

CRM-35970-2022 in/and -4-

CRM-M-46471-2021

justice, FIR No.21 dated 09.03.2021 under Sections 498-A/34/506/313 IPC,

registered at Women Police Station, Manesar, District Gurugram and all the

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed,

however, qua the petitioners only.

Resultantly, with the above-said observations made, the instant

petition stands allowed.

However, this order shall be subject to condition that the petitioners

deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs with the District Legal Services Authority,

Gurugram.

28.09.2022                                                 (VIVEK PURI)
renubala                                                      JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned:       Yes/No
             Whether reportable:              Yes/No




                                     4 of 4