Allowed

Aashish Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Feb 2012CRM-M/27944/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under Sections 406, 498-A, and 506 IPC. Relying on precedents regarding compromise in disputes involving personal discord, the court held that a verified settlement warranting social amity justified quashing subsequent proceedings in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed; FIR No.39 dated 12.4.2011 under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 IPC and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-27944 of 2011 Date of Decision:23.2.2012

¶3

Aashish Chaudhary and others

¶4

.... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Anuj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Rattu, D.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Kanwar Narinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶10

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.39 dated 12.4.2011 under Sections 406,498-A,506 IPC Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula, Haryana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶14

The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the family. Compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh has already been placed on record to this effect.

¶15

In pursuance to the compromise arrived at between the parties before Mediation and Conciliation Centre in Mediation case

¶16

-2-

¶17

CRM M-27944 of 2011

¶18

No.578 of 2011 in CRM No.M-17880 of 2011, learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over a bank draft bearing No.091576 dated 22.2.2012 amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- to the learned counsel for respondent No.3 which has been duly received by respondent No.3, who is present in the Court alongwith her counsel.

¶19

The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.3 admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondent No.3 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶20

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder

¶21

Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:-

¶22

“ The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section

¶23

CRM M-27944 of 2011 -3320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”

¶24

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-

¶25

“ We need to emphasise 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.”

¶26

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavit of respondent No.3 stating that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice.

¶27

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.39 dated 12.4.2011 under Sections 406,498-A,506 IPC Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula, Haryana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶28

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

¶29

23.2.2012 rajeev

Aashish Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aashish Chaudhary & 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

Rajbir & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Satinder Singh @ Babba & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

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

Shilpa Johar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Hoshiari Lal Vs State of Punjab

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