Seema Rani And Others v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17765-2024 Date of decision: July 10th, 2024 Seema Rani and others .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Manvender Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the instant petition is for quashing of FIR No.442 dated 12.10.2023 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 452, 506 of the IPC (Section 325 of the IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). 2.

Vide order dated 10.04.2024 of this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 10.05.2024 to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at, between them.

3.

Report has since been received from learned trial Court in pursuance of the directions of this Court, wherein, the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties stands verified and confirmed. As per the report compromise has indeed been effected between the parties PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.07.10 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-17765-2024 -2and the same is without any pressure or coercion and out of their free will and the private respondents have also made statement to the effect that they would have no objection if the FIR qua the accused-petitioners is quashed.

4.

The trial Court has annexed the statements of the parties in original, along with its report.

5.

Learned State counsel too submits that there are no other accused other than the petitioners and respondent No.2 is the only aggrieved person in the FIR in question.

6.

In view of the report of the learned trial Court and the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, and also by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the instant petition is allowed. The aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of it, are quashed.

7.

Needless to say the parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. July 10th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.07.10 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh