Allowed

Sunny Shokeen v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Sept 2010CRM-M/14035/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings in a matrimonial dispute. Relying on a compromise between parties and an affidavit confirming its fulfillment, the court held it fit to exercise inherent powers to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.47 dated 31.12.2007 under Sections 498-A/406/323/506/34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom stood quashed.

Sunny Shokeen Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-14035 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:27.9.2010

Sunny Shokeen

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Chanakya Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, A.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Inder Pal Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶10

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶15

Crl. M. No.49787 of 2010

¶16

Allowed as prayed for.

¶17

Crl. M. No.14035-M of 2010

¶18

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.47 dated 31.12.2007 under Sections 498A/406/323/506/34 IPC Police Station Women Cell, Sonepat and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶19

The FIR in question is a result of matrimonial dispute. However, the matter has been compromised. It is pertinent to mention here that the parties had made joint statement dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) before the learned Additional District Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi to the effect that parties have effected a compromise. As per the compromise, a

¶20

CRM M-14035 of 2010 (O&M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

total payment of Rs.10 Lacs was to be paid to respondent No.2 out of which Rs.3 Lacs would be paid before the Hon'ble High Court when the petition for quashing would be moved. In pursuance to the said statement, marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 had already been dissolved vide order dated 2.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi (Annexure P-2). An Affidavit dated 15.9.2010 of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise has been placed on record vide Crl. M. No.49787 of 2010 stating that the petitioner has already complied with all the terms and conditions in pursuance to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 1.10.2009 and has deposited the last installment of Rs.3,00,000/- before the learned District Judge, Rohini Delhi on 14.9.2010. Respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶23

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that the compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:-

¶24

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

¶25

CRM M-14035 of 2010 (O&M) -3wide power to quash the proceedings even in noncompoundable 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.”

¶26

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008

¶27

(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-

¶28

“ 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.”

¶29

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties, the affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.47 dated 31.12.2007 under Sections 498-A/406/323/506/34 IPC Police Station Women Cell, Sonepat and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶31

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

¶32

27.9.2010 rajeev

Sunny Shokeen v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Shokeen 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

Amit Goswami and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jagdish Parshad Vaid & Others Vs State of Haryana

Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Dharaminder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurmukh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Chinndfer Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab