Allowed

Navneet Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 May 2009CRM-M/10269/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of an FIR registered for matrimonial dispute based on a compromise. The court, finding the dispute resolved and settlement in interest of parties, allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings, relying on a Full Bench decision.

What did the court decide?

The present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Navneet Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CRM No. M-10269 of 2009 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CRM No. M-10269 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.5.2009

¶4

Navneet Kumar and others

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and another

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Gupta, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶10

Rajan Gupta, J.

¶11

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.136 dated 28^th May, 2008, under Sections 406, 498-A & 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 40, Gurgaon (Annexure P-1) and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

¶12

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 i.e. husband and wife are present in Court. They have been duly identified by their respective counsel. They have submitted that the matrimonial dispute has been resolved and petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have decided to part their ways. All issues as regards Istridhan , maintenance and permanent alimony have been settled. The complainant-respondent No.2 has filed

¶13

CRM No. M-10269 of 2009 2

¶14

reply by way of short affidavit, which is taken on record as Mark 'A' admitting therein the factum of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. She states that she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the fact that the present FIR is regarding a matrimonial dispute, the State would not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR.

¶16

The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings, which would be a futile exercise.

¶17

In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052.

¶18

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶19

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

¶20

May 19, 2009 'rajpal'

Navneet Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navneet Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajnish@Nishu Vs State of Haryana

Vijay Pal Vs State of Haryana

Satyawir and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Sunil Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Parminder Singh @ Prince Vs State of Punjab

Sabbi Dhaliwal Vs State of Punjab