Ritu And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 6603 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ritu And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 22 March, 2024

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042225



                                                         2024:PHHC:042225

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

245                                    CRM-M-53797-2023
                                       Date of Decision:22.03.2024

RITU AND ANOTHER                                            .....Petitioners

            Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER                                    .....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:-   Mr. Lekhraj Sharma, Advocate with
            Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate and
            Mr. Sharma Raj Kumar Mangal Sain, Advocate
            for the petitioners.
            Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional AG, Haryana.
            Mr. Ankit Grewal, Advocate
            for respondent No.2.

                         ****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for

quashing of F.I.R. No.778 dated 21.08.2017, under Sections 380, 120-B

(added later on) (Section 365 IPC deleted) registered at Police Station

Chandani Bagh, District Panipat and all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 21.08.2022 (Annexure P-2).

This Court vide order dated 01.02.2024 had directed the parties

to appear before the trial Court to get their statements recorded and the

learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the

compromise.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat and got their statements

recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, Learned Magistrate has

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042225

CRM-M-53797-2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:042225

submitted report dated 16.03.2024 to the effect that the compromise has

been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or

undue influence.

Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2

have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties.

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to

continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant F.I.R.

Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment

of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and

another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10

SCC 303, this petition is allowed and charge sheet No.1A, dated 21.10.2018

registered in case F.I.R. No.778 dated 21.08.2017, under Sections 380, 120-

B (added later on) (Section 365 IPC deleted) registered at Police Station

Chandani Bagh, District Panipat and all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 21.08.2022 (Annexure P-2)are

quashed qua the petitioner.

                                                     ( DEEPAK GUPTA )
                                                          JUDGE
22.03.2024
pry


             Whether Speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
             Whether Reportable                Yes/No




                                      2 of 2