Allowed

Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Dec 2012CRM-M/16067/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition to quash an FIR under Sections 323, 328, 498-A and 506 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute. Based on a recorded compromise and statements from all parties, the Court held that continuing the trial would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No.173 dated 10.07.2007 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

Ajit Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-16067 of 2012 ..1..

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Criminal Misc. No.M-16067 of 2012 Date of Decision : 19^th December, 2012

Ajit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & Anr.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶10

Present: Mr.S.K.Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

¶11

Mr.Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

¶13

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶14

This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.173 dated 10.07.2007, under Sections 323, 328, 498-A and 506, IPC, registered at Police Station, Sampla, District Rohtak, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.

¶15

Vide order dated 15.11.2012, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear on 26.11.2012 before the learned trial court for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said Court was also directed to send its detailed report in that regard on or before the date fixed by this Court.

¶16

In compliance thereof, the petitioner and respondent No.2/ complainant as well as their respective fathers did appear before the court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The report has been received from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Perusal of the said report reveals that after effecting the compromise, the petitioner and respondent No.2/ complainant are residing together with their children at Sampla.

¶17

..2..

¶18

Criminal Misc. No.M-16067 of 2012

¶19

The fathers of the petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant also got recorded their respective statements admitting the factum of the compromise. All the four persons stated that they had no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant admits the factum of compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Balraj Singh, Police Station, Sampla, District Rohtak, admits the factum of compromise. Learned State counsel, after going through the report, sent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, submits that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present criminal litigation had arisen out of a matrimonial dispute which has amicably been sorted out and a compromise has been effected between the private parties. He further submits that pursuant to the order dated 15.11.2011 passed by this Court, the parties did appear before the court below and recorded their respective statements. He also submits that the pendency of the FIR and the consequential proceedings would be sheer abuse of the process of the law since the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioner are bleak. He further contends that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have two minor children and now all the persons are residing together happily. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the ratio of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian

¶23

..3..

¶24

Criminal Misc. No.M-16067 of 2012

¶25

Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543(SC), as well as the judgment delivered by a Five Judge Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

The present criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. The husband and the wife are happily residing together alongwith their two children who are aged about 09 years and 06 years, respectively. The private parties along with their respective fathers did appear before the court below and got recorded their respective statements. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also admitted the factum of compromise. In view of these facts, the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioner are bleak and pendency of the FIR and continuation of the trial would be a sheer abuse of the process of law.

¶28

Keeping in view the factum of compromise and the judgments cited hereinabove, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.173 dated 10.07.2007, under Sections 323, 328, 498-A and 506, IPC, registered at Police Station, Sampla, District Rohtak, as well as the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶29

December 19, 2012 seema

¶30

(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge

Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh 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

Bir Singh Vs Rajender Singh

Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Loveleen Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Vipin Kumar Vs Prem Chand

Nirmal Kaur and Ors. Vs Om Parkash Banth

Krishan Kaur @ Krishna Vs State of Punjab