Allowed

Anil Bajaj and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2009CRM-M/12333/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR registered under matrimonial offences. The court held that since the parties had amicably compromised the matter and obtained a divorce by mutual consent, continuing criminal proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No. 138 dated 10.11.2006 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc No. M-12333 of 2008 Date of decision : 14.05.2009

¶3

Anil Bajaj and Others

¶4

....Petitioners

¶5

V/s

¶6

State of Haryana and another

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Bipan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana.

¶11

RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)

¶12

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 138 dated 10.11.2006 registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC at Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 have pointed out that both the parties are present in Court today. They have been duly identified by their respective counsel. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in which it has been stated that petitioner No 1 and respondent No. 2 have compromised the matter and get a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 05.12.2007, Annexure P-4 to the petition. Respondent No. 2 has further stated that she has no objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings be quashed. An affidavit alongwith photocopy of the identity card of respondent No. 2 is taken on record as mark 'A'.

¶14

Crl. Misc No. M-12333 of 2008

¶15

-2-

¶16

Learned counsel for the State submits that dispute being matrimonial in nature, the State will not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR in question.

¶17

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.

¶18

In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom 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.

¶19

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

¶20

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

¶21

14.05.2009 Ajay

Anil Bajaj and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Bajaj and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Manish @ Gatti Vs State of Haryana

Ahsaan Vs State of Haryana and Othrs

Malkiat Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Ram Asra Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harbans Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harinder Singh Alias Nindi etc. Vs State of Punjab