Pritam And Another v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.04.2022 PRITAM AND ANR.

...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI

Present:

Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sachin Chawla, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.

**** VIVEK PURI,J. (ORAL) Petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR No. 83 dated 01.06.2017 under Sections 498-A/323/377/506 IPC, 1860, registered at Women Police Station, District Jhajjar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. On 22.02.2022, parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate and get their statements recorded with regard to the compromise arrived at between them.

The trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned and send its report regarding genuineness and voluntary nature of the compromise.

In compliance of the order dated 22.02.2022, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-ACJM, Jhajjar has recorded the statements of the parties and submitted his report, the relevant para whereof reads as under:- "On a perusal of the statements, it appears that the

-2compromise between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. As per the report of the Investigating Officer there are only two persons arrayed as accused in this case. None of the accused was declared proclaimed offender. Further, as per the record of the Investigating Officer, the accused persons are not involved in any other case."

Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled between the parties in terms of memorandum of understanding dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure P-2). The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent in terms of judgment/decree dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure P-3). The lumpsum amount on account of permanent alimony has also been paid to respondent No.2. No other case is pending between the parties. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that he has no objection if FIR is quashed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice because the parties have arrived at a settlement, out of the Court, by way of compromise. The compromise is without any pressure and a genuine one. In such a situation, continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law.

The controversy in the instant case does not indicate that the same involves heinous or serious offences and furthermore, the matrimonial dispute has been sought to be amicably settled. Consequently, a deserving case is made out where the court should exercise the power to secure the ends of justice. For the aforesaid view, this Court finds support from Kulwinder

-3Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 83 dated 01.06.2017 under Sections 498-A/323/377/506 IPC, 1860, registered at Women Police Station, District Jhajjar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed, however, qua the petitioners only.

Resultantly, with the above-said observations made, the instant petition stands allowed.

22.04.2022 (VIVEK PURI) renubala JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No