Allowed

Goldy Arora @ Vivek Arora & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Nov 2012CRM-M/23880/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed a petition to quash an FIR and consequential proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute under Sections 406, 498-A, and 506 IPC, noting the dispute was compromised and the victim had obtained a mutual consent divorce.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 196 dated 1.7.2011 under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC and consequential proceedings quashed.

Goldy Arora @ Vivek Arora & Ors. Vs State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M No. 23880 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No. 23880 of 2011 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: November 21, 2012

¶6

Goldy Arora @ Vivek Arora and others

¶7

...Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Haryana and another

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶12

Present: Mr. Pankaj Kr. Dua, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 1.

¶14

Mr. Gaurav G.S. Chauhan, Advocate, with respondent No. 2-complainant, Surender Kaur, in person.

¶15

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

¶16

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 196, dated 1.7.2011, under Sections 406, 498-A and 506, IPC, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Faridabad, and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of compromise.

¶17

Respondent No. 2-complainant, Surender Kaur, appeared before this Court along with her counsel Mr. Gaurav G.S. Chauhan. She suffered her statement that on 14.1.2010 her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No. 1, Goldy Arora @ Vivek Arora. Some disputes arose amongst them and thereafter

¶18

¶19

CRM-M No. 23880 of 2011 (O&M)

¶20

she lodged the impugned FIR. During the pendency of the said FIR, the elderly people of the society and the relatives got the matter compromised. She further deposed that on the basis of the compromise, they filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent before the learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, which was allowed on 28.7.2012. She further deposed that in view of the compromise, she has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the compromise, the pendency of the FIR would be sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of conviction and sentence of the petitioners would be bleak. In support of his contention, he cites B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 888 and Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat and another, 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 589 .

¶22

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from SI Om Parkash of Police Station, Kotwali, Faridabad, admits the factum of the compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶23

Learned counsel representing respondent No. 2- complainant, has also no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

CRM-M No. 23880 of 2011 (O&M) 3

¶26

This criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. Respondent No. 2-complainant, Surender Kaur, has appeared before this Court and suffered the statement that she has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Her statement in that regard has been recorded separately. Learned counsel for the State as well respondent No. 2-complainant, have also no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. In Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana's case (supra) , their Lordships' of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that where the accused and the victim entered into a compromise, though the offence was not compoundable in terms of Section 320, Cr.P.C., even with the permission of the Court, then also the proceedings could be quashed after finding that the chances of conviction were bleak. In B.S. Joshi's case (supra) , Hon'ble the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute on the basis of the compromise though the offences were non-compoundable.

¶27

In the present case, the pendency of the FIR would be sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioners are bleak in view of the compromise entered into between the private parties. During the course of the dictation of this order, learned counsel for respondent No. 2- complainant, Surender Kaur, apprised the Court that after grant of divorce vide judgment and decree, dated 28.7.2012, respondent No. 2 has re-married with Sudhir Wadwa.

¶28

Taking into consideration all the facts of the case, the judgments cited herein above and the factum of the compromise,

¶29

CRM-M No. 23880 of 2011 (O&M) 4

¶30

the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 196, dated 1.7.2011, under Sections 406, 498-A and 506, IPC, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Faridabad, and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶31

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶32

November 21, 2012 PKapoor

¶33

CRM-M No. 23880 of 2011 (O&M) 5

Goldy Arora @ Vivek Arora & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goldy Arora @ Vivek Arora & Ors. v. State of Haryana & 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

Kamal Verma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Lavlesh Chander Bhardwaj and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Anish Sharma Vs Ajay Sood and Anr.

Lakhbir Singh Vs Swaran Singh

Rajiv Kawatra Vs State of Haryana

Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.