Allowed

Manmohan Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2013CRM-M/10218/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR involving matrimonial offences. Relying on prior precedents regarding valid compromises, the court held that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process given the settlement and lack of conviction.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.35 dated 31.01.2008 and all criminal proceedings arising therefrom under Sections 406/498-A/506 IPC were quashed based on the compromise dated 23.02.2013.

Manmohan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-10218 of 2013 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-10218 of 2013 Date of decision: 20 May, 2013.

Manmohan Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶13

¶14

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

This petition has been moved by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of case FIR No.35 dated 31.01.2008, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Karnal, under Sections 406/498-A/506 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of compromise dated 23.02.2013 (Annexure P-3).

¶16

Vide order dated 01.04.2013, notice of motion was issued and parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.04.2013 to get their statements recorded with regard to compromise and the trial Court was directed to submit its report.

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-10218 of 2013

¶18

-2-

¶19

In compliance of order dated 01.04.2013, trial Court has submitted its report vide letter dated 23.04.2013 which indicates that parties appeared before it and got recorded their respective statements with regard to validity of compromise. As per the report, compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion from any corner. Now no dispute is pending between the parties.

¶20

Learned counsel for the parties state that the trial is still pending till date and conviction has not been recorded by the Court.

¶21

Consequently, in view of compromise dated 23.02.2013 (Annexure P-3) and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, which has been affirmed by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, SLP (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010 decided on 24.9.2012, by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation, especially when this case does not fall within the category of exceptional cases where this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdictional power to quash the criminal proceedings, as held in Gian Singh's case (supra). In the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-10218 of 2013 -3-

¶23

and wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, therefore, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end.

¶24

The present petition is allowed. FIR No.35 dated 31.01.2008, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Karnal, under Sections 406/498-A/506 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise dated 23.02.2013 (Annexure P-3), and all the criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR also stand quashed.

¶25

It is, however, made clear that if the proceedings already stand concluded and conviction recorded in the present case, this order shall be treated non est and, thus, will have no bearing on the conviction and sentence order.

¶26

(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE

¶27

May 20, 2013 parveen kumar

Manmohan Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmohan 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

Mohini Malhotra Vs State of Haryana

Amardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Yusuf Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sukhbir Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Satbir Singh Vs Gurmukh Singh and Ors.

Rajesh Verma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.