Quashed

Sanjeev Garg and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2011CRM-M/11480/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 498-A and others presented as a matrimonial dispute. Respondent No.2 appeared and confirmed an amicable resolution via compromise and filed mutual consent divorce petition. Court quashed proceedings based on settled ratio.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.

Sanjeev Garg and Anr. Vs State of Haryana… — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc.No.M-11480 of 2011 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Crl. Misc. No.M-11480 of 2011

¶4

Date of Decision: 23 - 5 - 2011

¶5

Sanjeev Garg and another

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

¶8

State of Haryana and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr.Kushaldeep S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr.Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶14

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶15

¶16

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶17

Monika – respondent No.2 had lodged a case FIR No.7 dated 18.1.2010 registered at Police Station Kalka, District Panchkula under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC against her husband Sanjeev Garg and mother-in-law Sarita Garg, the petitioners herein. They seeks quashing of the same, on the basis of a compromise dated 25.11.2010 arrived at between the parties, and a copy whereof has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P2.

¶18

Today, Monika – respondent No.2 is present in Court. She has been identified by her counsel Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate. Her

¶19

Crl. Misc.No.M-11480 of 2011 [2]

¶20

statement has been recorded separately. Same be read as a part of this order. Monika has stated before this Court that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved. She and petitioner No.1 Sanjeev Garg have decided to part gracefully. Pursuant to the agreement, a sum of Rs.4 lacs has already been paid to her. It is stated that both husband and wife have filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The said petition is fixed for recording statements of the parties on 30.5.2011 before the District Judge, Panchkula.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioners and complainant-respondent No.2 have jointly prayed that in view of the compromise arrived at between them, the present petition be quashed, as both husband and wife have decided to part with gracefully.

¶22

It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888 and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another , 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 that if a matrimonial dispute has been resolved, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal proceedings.

¶23

Taking into consideration the ratio of law laid down in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) , the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.

¶24

May 23, 2011.

¶25

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) JUDGE

¶26

Sanjeev Garg and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Garg and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramdeep Singh & Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gurmail Singh Vs State of Haryana

Gurmail Chand Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Inderjit Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Rashpal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jaswinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.