Vishal Yadav And Others v. State Of Haryana And Another

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.03.2024 Vishal Yadav and others .... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Ms. Deepika, Advocate for the petitioners.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 25 dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 323/34, 354-A, 377, 406, 498A and 506 IPC at Women Police Station Rewari, District Rewari and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-3).

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 is the husband; petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law; whereas petitioners No. 4 and 5 are the brother and sister-in-law (Jeth and Jethani) of complainant/respondent No. 2 herein. Marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 29.11.2020. No child was born out of the said wedlock.

-2Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not cohabit together and on account of some misunderstanding the present FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2-complainant. Now better sense has prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into compromise dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-2), according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question. It is also submitted that a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by way of mutual consent has also been filed before the Family Court, concerned, wherein first motion statements of the parties have already been recorded and the next date for recording second motion statement of the parties is fixed in the month of July, 2024. Further, it is submitted that the present petitioners are the only accused in the present FIR and they have never been declared as proclaimed offenders.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of Court, Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State; whereas Mr. S.K. Yadav, who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 and submits Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 have not disputed the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the factum of compromise effected between the parties.

On instructions from ASI Pramila, learned counsel for the State submits that after completion of investigation, the police has

-3prepared cancellation report in the matter on 09.03.2024, which is pending for approval from higher authorities. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she may be permitted to withdraw the present petition, at this stage.

Permitted to do so.

Dismissed as withdrawn, at this stage.

20.03.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No