Allowed

Abhinav Sharma v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2010CRM-M/24268/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered under Section 498-A IPC. The court held that since parties reached a compromise resumed cohabitation and disputes were resolved, continuing proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No.606 dated 28.12.2009 under Section 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon and all subsequent proceedings.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 24268 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 24268 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 17, 2010

Abhinav Sharma

........Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Present: Petitioner in person.

¶13

Mr. S.S. Gauripuria, DAG, Haryana.

¶14

Ms. Manju Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶15

Respondent No.2 in person.

¶16

SABINA, J.

¶17

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.606 dated 28.12.2009, under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon as well as all subsequent proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Gurgaon and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶18

Petitioner has submitted that now with the intervention of the relatives and friends parties have arrived at a compromise. Petitioner and respondent No.2 are now residing together in the matrimonial home since 16.1.2010 and have settled all their disputes.

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M- 24268 of 2010 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

Respondent No.2 is present in person along with her counsel and has stated that she is residing with her husband-petitioner in the matrimonial home since 16.1.2010. Respondent No.2 has tendered her affidavit, wherein she has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed and also stated that she is residing with the petitioner since 16.1.2010 and all the disputes have been resolved amicably.

¶22

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

¶23

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos.26 and 24 has held as under :-

¶24

“26. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facts. The question which is required to be answered in this case is

¶25

Crl. Misc. No. M- 24268 of 2010 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?

¶28

On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of the Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.”

¶29

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.606 dated 28.12.2009, under Section 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon as well as all subsequent proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Gurgaon and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶31

November 17, 2010 Neetu

¶32

(SABINA) JUDGE

Abhinav Sharma v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinav Sharma 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

Arminder Singh @ Tippu Vs State of Punjab etc.

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Baldeva Vs Kamla Devi

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bachitar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Hardwari and Ors. Vs State of Haryana