Allowed

Om Parkash and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2012CRM-M/14402/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminl Misc. No. 14402 of 2008: The Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under Sections 323, 498-A, 406 IPC. The parties had amicably compromised the dispute arising from marital discord, and the complainant recorded a statement confirming full settlement and willingness to withdraw related appeals. Quashing was deemed appropriate as no useful purpose woul

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 237 dated 06.08.2006 under Sections 323, 498-A, 406 IPC and subsequent proceedings were quashed qua all accused; parties bound by statements.

Om Parkash and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 14402 of 2008 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 14402 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.05.2012

¶4

Om Parkash and others ........Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

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

¶11

Mr. J S Chahal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant

¶12

-.-

¶13

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

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR

¶18

No. 237 dated 06.08.2006 under Sections 323, 498-A, 406 IPC, Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners.

¶19

In the present case, the marital discord between the son of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 led to filing of the said FIR. However, during the pendency of the case, compromise has been arrived at

¶20

CRM No. M 14402 of 2008 2

¶21

between the parties. Complainant-Pooja is present in Court along with her counsel. She got her statement recorded separately in Court today. As per the said statement, she has compromised the matter. In pursuance to the compromise, she has received an amount of Rs.2.75 lacs which includes the arrears of Rs.25,000/- in Court today towards full and final settlement. She also stated that she shall withdraw the appeal i.e. FAO No. 330 M of 2009 and shall also not claim arrears of Rs.25,000/- which was directed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to be paid to her in the above mentioned appeal as the same has already been paid. She has no other claim pending against the petitioners as well as against her husband Harish Puri alias Happy or any other of his family members. In the said statement, she has specifically stated that she will withdraw the said appeal within 10 days from toady as well as any other case filed by her against Harish Puri or his family members. It is further stated that in case, she fails to withdraw the said appeal, the same shall be deemed to be dismissed. It is further stated by the complainant that she has no objection if the FIR qua her ex husband, their parents and all other accused mentioned in the petition is quashed.

¶22

Petitioner No. 1, who is present Court has also got his statement record that he will not initiate any case against respondent No. 2 and her family. He also undertakes not to write any complaint against the complainant to her employer.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

CRM No. M 14402 of 2008 3

¶26

has observed as under:-

¶27

“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.”

¶28

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of

¶29

Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶30

“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.”

¶31

Taking into account the allegations as well as statement of the complainant and Petitioner No. 1 recorded before this Court today itself, 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

¶32

CRM No. M 14402 of 2008 4

¶33

settled proposition of law.

¶34

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 237 dated 06.08.2006 under Sections 323, 498-A, 406 IPC, Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same is hereby quashed qua all accused. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 shall remain bound by their statements recorded before this Court today.

¶35

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶36

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶37

mohan

¶38

18.05.2012

Om Parkash and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Parkash and Ors. 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

Anita Saagar @ Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Mohit Vs State of Punjab

Niranjan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Monu Vs State of Haryana

Sukhjinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satya Devi etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.