Ravi Kumar Sharma v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34646-2019 (O&M) Decided on : 20.01.2020 Ravi Kumar Sharma . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL PRESENT: Mr. K.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Ashish Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

Respondent No.2 - complainant in-person.

**** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (Oral) The instant petition is for quashing of FIR No. 300, dated 26.05.2015, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-7, Faridabad, including Final Report (Annexure P-1) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of compromise deed dated 29th July, 2019 (Annexure P-2) arrived at, between the parties.

Vide order dated 26th August, 2019 of this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 14th October, 2019 to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at, between them.

Report has since been received from the learned JMIC, Faridabad, in pursuance to the direction 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 JAWALA RAM 2020.01.22 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-34646-2019 (O&M) - 2 - the parties and the same is without any pressure or coercion and out of their free will and the complainant has also made statement to the effect that she would have no objection if the FIR qua the accused-petitioner is quashed. The trial Court has annexed copies of statements of the parties in original alongwith its report.

Ms. Ashita Garg, respondent No.2 - complainant, who has appeared in-person, produced a self attested photocopy of her Aadhar card, duly identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Same is taken on record. She has admitted the factum of compromise arrived at between them and pleaded no objection for quashing of the FIR in question. Learned State counsel too submits that there are no other accused other than the petitioner and respondent No.2 is the only aggrieved person in the FIR in question.

In view of the report of the learned JMIC, Faridabad and the principles laid down by 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. Needless to say the parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE January 20, 2020 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2020.01.22 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh