Manish v. State Of Haryana And ORS

CRM Nos.M-40908 and 41264 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on: 31.01.2017

1. CRM No.M-40908 of 2016 Manish ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents

2. CRM No.M-41264 of 2016 Manish and another ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present :

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners (in both the petitions) Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Punjab (in both the petitions) Ms. Kamlesh, Advocate for Mr. Dilpreet Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 (in both the petitions) REKHA MITTAL, J. (Oral) By way of this order, I intend to dispose of CRM Nos.M40908 of 2016 and No.M-41264 of 2016 seeking quashing of FIR Nos.556 dated 08.10.2015 for offence punishable under Sections 323, 354-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and No.352 dated 03.07.2014 under Sections 294, 354-D, 454, 380, 511 and 506 IPC, registered in Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. The FIRs were registered at the instance of Shiv Dayal son of Ram Kishan. Now, dispute between the parties has been resolved by way of compromise (Annexure P2).

Vide order dated 18.11.2016, the parties were directed to Mohd. Yakub 2017.02.14 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM Nos.M-40908 and 41264 of 2016 appear before the trial Court to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of compromise.

Pursuant thereto, a report has been submitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, wherein it has been reported that statements of the parties have been recorded and they have voluntarily compromised the matter.

Counsel for the State and respondents No.2 and 3 have not disputed that the parties i.e. petitioners and respondent No.2 (complainant) have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.

Perusal of allegations in the FIRs reveals that the present case squarely falls in the category of cases that can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code. Keeping in view authoritative enunciation of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in "Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another", 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543 and in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and it is expedient in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings are put to an end.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petitions are allowed, the afore-mentioned FIRs and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners. 31.01.2017 (REKHA MITTAL) yakub JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Mohd. Yakub 2017.02.14 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh