Allowed

Manoj Tuli v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2010CRM-M/8790/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging dowry harassment and cheating. The court noted the matter was amicably settled via counseling and allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and related proceedings without prejudice to future complaints if the alleged offense is repeated.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 472 dated November 24, 2005 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed.

Manoj Tuli Vs State of Haryana — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CRM M-8790 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CRM M-8790 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision: July 4, 2012

Manoj Tuli

…..Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and another

¶10

…..Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶12

-.-

¶13

Present:Mr.Mohinder Nain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana.

¶15

Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶16

-.-

¶17

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶18

Petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 472 dated November 24, 2005 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC, Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad, registered at the instance of respondent No.2- Khushbu alleging that the petitioner had maltreated her and misappropriated her dowry articles.

¶19

CRM M-8790 of 2010 (O&M) [2]

¶20

Notice was issued to the respondents. Respondent No.2Khushbu present in the Court has informed that pursuant to the efforts of the Counseling Cell, Family Court, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, the matter has been amicably settled. Certified copy of the compromise has been placed on record alongwith the copies of the affidavit of petitioner and statement of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 present in the court alongwith minor daughter Muskan has stated that she had got no objection in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶21

After hearing the parties present in the Court, I am of the opinion that the matrimonial dispute pending since long seems to have been settled, as is apparent from the compromise which has been placed on record.

¶22

Following the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another , 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 472 dated November 24, 2005 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC, Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad and all the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed, without prejudice to the right of respondent No.2 to commence the proceedings afresh in case the offence alleged is repeated by the petitioner in future.

¶23

July 4, 2012 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

¶24

CRM M-8790 of 2010 (O&M) [3]

Manoj Tuli v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Tuli v. State of Haryana

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

Gurdeep Singh S/O Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab Thru Spdt of Police Ldh and Ors.

Gurpreet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab through Ssp Ludhiana and Ors.

Mandeep Singh @ Vicky and Ors. Vs State of Punjab through Ssp Ludhiana and Ors.

Renu Garg and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Iqbal Singh Vs Gurjant Singh and Anr.

Patras Alias Billa Vs State of Punjab etc.