Allowed

Rajneesh and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2012CRM-M/22287/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed the FIR against petitioners accused of domestic violence and cheating and acquitted them following an amicable settlement via mutual consent divorce petition between the parties, invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and the petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

Rajneesh and Others Vs State of Haryana and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M-22287 of 2012 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M-22287 of 2012 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision:-24.9.2012

¶5

Rajneesh & Ors. ...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana & Anr. ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶9

Present:Mr.Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Verma, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr.J.P.Sharma Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶10

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)

¶11

Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, in the wake of complaint of complainant Manavi respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by means of FIR No.13 dated 12.1.2007 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 498-A & 406 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

¶12

After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report, in terms of section 173 Cr.PC. Accordingly, the petitioners were charge sheeted for the trial of indicated

¶13

CRM No. M-22287 of 2012 (O&M) -2-

¶14

offences by the trial Court and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.

¶15

During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute, by virtue of compromise (Annexure P2) recorded in the divorce petition for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”).

¶16

Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-accused have preferred the present petition to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that due to intervention of the respectables and family members, the parties have entered into compromise. In pursuance thereof, they have already filed a joint petition for divorce, by way of mutual consent under section 13-B of the Act and made their statements (Annexure P4) in it. The complainantwife has agreed to withdraw the petition under section 125 Cr.PC and petitioner-husband has also agreed to pay a sum of `3,50,000/- as maintenance allowance. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted here-in-above.

¶17

During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties with regard to genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise, vide order dated 27.7.2012.

¶18

CRM No. M-22287 of 2012 (O&M) -3-

¶19

In compliance thereof, the trial Court has submitted its report, bearing No.677 dated 24.8.2012, which, in substance, is as under:-

¶20

“That on 24.8.2012, both the parties appeared before the court and suffered their joint statement with regard to the compromise effected between them before the court of Shri Rajneesh Bansal, learned ADJ, Narnaul on 19.7.2012. They also stated that the said statement before the learned Judge was genuine and valid and they bound themselves by the said statement for the purpose of compliance of order dated 27.7.2012. It is also submitted that they again made a statement before the court with regard to their compromise, which bears their signatures duly identified by their counsels and was entered by them with their free consent and in the interest of both the parties.”

¶21

That means, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their dispute, by means of compromise (Annexure P4).

¶22

Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in the present case is, as to whether the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in view of the settlement or not ?

¶23

Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for parties, to me, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the instant criminal prosecution is quashed and the parties are allowed to live in peace. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the criminal prosecution is liable to be quashed as per the compromise between them.

¶24

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the law with regard to quashing such criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement between the parties, by way of compromise, has now been well-settled by

¶25

CRM No. M-22287 of 2012 (O&M) -4-

¶26

the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 9; Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , wherein it was ruled that the High Court has vast inherent power to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement of disputes between the parties.

¶27

The crux of the law laid down in the indicated judgments is that the power under section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by means of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same, unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery, if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. 12. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such matrimonial disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable in the instant case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

¶28

As is evident from the record, that the parties have amicably

¶29

CRM No. M-22287 of 2012 (O&M) -5-

¶30

settled their disputes, vide compromise (Annexure P4). They have filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent, in which, their statements have been recorded by the trial Court. The complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto against the petitioners are quashed. The parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute. Since the compromise is in their welfare & interest., so, to my mind, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner.

¶31

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed and the petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶32

Needless to mention that, both the parties will abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise (Annexure P4) in letter and spirit. In case of breach of any terms & conditions of the settlement by any of the parties, the aggrieved party would be at liberty to file the fresh petition to obtain appropriate relief in this relevant connection.

¶33

24.9.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge

Rajneesh and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

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

Harender & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Harsh Thapar Vs State of Punjab

Vinod Alias Vicky Vs State of Haryana

Baldev Raj and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Mohinder Singh Vs Bahadur Singh and Others

Satinder Pal Singh @Sunny and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.