Allowed

Harsh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 May 2012CRM-M/11452/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed an FIR registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 IPC based on a voluntary compromise between the petitioner and respondent. The court relied on the trial court's report confirming the compromise and a divorce decree passed by mutual consent, holding that keeping the criminal case alive served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 51 dated 28.05.2012 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Harsh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 11452 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 11452 of 2012 Date of decision: 30.05.2012

¶4

Harsh Kumar Sharma and others

¶5

........Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s)

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

-.-

¶10

Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioners

¶11

Mr. J S Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent State

¶12

Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant

¶13

-.-

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶18

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 51 dated 28.05.2012 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC, Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 07.11.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-6.

¶19

Vide order dated 26.04.2012, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 07.05.2012. Trial Court was also

¶20

CRM No. M 11452 of 2012 2

¶21

directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to compromise and submit its detailed report in that regard.

¶22

In pursuance thereto, now, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula has submitted its report stating therein that from the statement of the complainant and accused, it is clear that the compromised has been effected between them voluntarily and without any kind of pressure.

¶23

Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the judgment dated 08.05.2012 passed by the District Judge, Panchkula, whereby decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between th4e parties by way of mutual consent has been granted.

¶24

From the above, it is clear that the parties have amicably compromised the matter and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.

¶25

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 observed as under:-

¶26

“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 reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”

¶27

CRM No. M 11452 of 2012 3

¶28

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶29

“6. We need to emphasize 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.”

¶30

Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as report of the trial Court authenticating the factum of the said compromise coupled with the fact the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved by mutual consent vide judgment dated 08.05.2012 passed by the District Judge, Panchkula, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.

¶31

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 51 dated 28.05.2012 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC, Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶32

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶34

30.05.2012 mohan

Harsh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Santokh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Gagan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Randhir Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhvinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Priyanka Verma and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others