Allowed

Umesh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Oct 2010CRM-M/10393/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash an FIR No. 151 and a subsequent complaint alleging dowry harassment (Sections 498-A, 506 IPC) after the complainant withdrew the matter via compromise.

What did the court decide?

Complaint dated 9.6.2008 and FIR No. 151 registered under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC dated 25.6.2008, along with consequential proceedings, were quashed.

Umesh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc.No.M 10393 of 2010(O&M) # 1#

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH .

¶3

Crl. Misc.No.M 10393 of 2010(O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision:-11.10.2010

¶5

Umesh & Ors .

¶6

...... Petitioners .

¶7

Versus

¶8

. The State of Haryana & Another

¶9

. ...... Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.

¶11

Present:Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶12

Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent no.2.

¶14

¶15

JASWANT SINGH, J.

¶16

Crl. Misc.No.18721 of 2010

¶17

Allowed as prayed for.

¶18

Crl. Misc.No.M 10393 of 2010

¶19

Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of complaint dated 9.6.2008(Annexure P-1) filed by the respondent no.2 against the petitioners before the court at Karnal and FIR No.151 dated 25.6.2008 under Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code

¶20

Crl. Misc.No.M 10393 of 2010(O&M) # 2#

¶21

registered with P.S. Butana, District Karnal(Annexure P-2) alongwith all consequential proceedings arised therefrom.

¶22

In the FIR, respondent no.2-complainant Meenu Rani had levelled allegations against the petitioners that petitioner no.1 being her husband and petitioners no.2 & 3 being her parents-in-law used to harass her on account of bringing insufficient dowry and also threatened to kill her.

¶23

Today Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.2-complainant Meenu Rani and has stated that she is living with petitioner no.1-her husband in her matrimonial home happily.

¶24

Respondent no.2-complainant Meenu Rani is present in the court today and has filed her affidavit Mark-A stating therein that with the intervention of the respectable and relatives the matter between the parties has been compromised and, therefore, she does not want to pursue the aforementioned complaint as well as FIR and has no objection if the same are quashed. She has been identified by her counsel.

¶25

A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another , 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of noncompoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:-

¶26

“The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar

¶27

Crl. Misc.No.M 10393 of 2010(O&M) # 3#

¶28

under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”

¶29

Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:-

¶30

“We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶31

Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.

¶32

Crl. Misc.No.M 10393 of 2010(O&M) # 4#

¶33

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and complaint dated 9.6.2008(Annexure P-1) filed by the respondent no.2 against the petitioners before the court at Karnal and FIR No.151 dated 25.6.2008 under Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code registered with P.S. Butana, District Karnal(Annexure P-2) alongwith all consequential proceedings therefrom are quashed.

¶34

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶35

11^nd October, 2010 Vinay

Umesh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh 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

Puran Singh Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors.

Satish Chand Vs State of Haryana

Suraj Bhan Vs State of Haryana

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurjinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Vijay Puri & Anr. Vs State of Punjab