Mamta @ Tina & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ANR

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-17784 of 2017 .....

Date of decision:1.11.2017 Mamta alias Tina and others .....Petitioners v.

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents ....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. K.S. Malik-I, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

None for the complainant-respondent No.2.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.8 dated 3.1.2017 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 120-B, 34, 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Rohtak Civil Lines, District Rohtak and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2). Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the name of petitioner No.5 may be corrected as Arjun Dev, which has inadvertently mentioned as Arun Dev. The request of the learned counsel for the petitioners is allowed and the name of petitioner No.5 is corrected as Arjun

Cr. Misc. No.M-17784 of 2017 [2] Dev instead of Arun Dev.

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantPrashant Sharma on the allegations that the accused-petitioners by hatching conspiracy have cheated him. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably settled and compromise has been entered into between the parties, therefore, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak has sent report dated 3.6.2017 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from the Investigating Officer admits the factum of compromise and submits that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate

Cr. Misc. No.M-17784 of 2017 [3] conviction are bleak.

Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No.8 dated 3.1.2017 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 120-B, 34, 406, 420 IPC at Police Station Rohtak Civil Lines, District Rohtak and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioners including petitioner No.5-Arjun Dev.

November 1, 2017.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No