Neetu Rana v. State Of Haryana And ANR.

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.29739 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision:14.02.2022 Neetu Rana

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Present:- Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aditi Giridhar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2.

-.- JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (ORAL) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.425 dated 19.05.2017 registered under Sections 384, 506 IPC at Police Station City Ballabhgarh, Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties on 24.08.2021. 2.

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant on the allegations that the petitioner herein had raised a demand of Rs.1.5 crore from the complainant on the pretext of false implication of him and his parents. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences.

3.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before the trial court/Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in support of the

-2compromise. In pursuance of the direction, a report has been received from JMIC, Faridabad stating that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

4.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the complainantrespondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State 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.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

6.

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, a 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 conviction are bleak.

7.

Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, this petition is allowed and FIR No.425 dated 19.05.2017 registered under Sections 384, 506 IPC at Police Station City

-3Ballabhgarh, Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua petitioner. February 14, 2022 (JAISHREE THAKUR) Pankaj* JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No