Allowed

Surjeet Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Dec 2013CRM-M/31480/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes FIR No.82 and consequential proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute under Sections 323, 498-A and 506 IPC. The Supreme Court precedents justify quashing due to a valid compromise and bleak prosecution prospects despite offences being non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.82 dated 30.04.2011 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Surjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-31480 of 2013 { 1 }

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Criminal Misc. No. M-31480 of 2013 Date of Decision : 02^nd December, 2013

Surjeet Kumar & Ors.

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana & Anr.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶10

Present: Mr.Satbir Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

Mr.Balraj Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶13

¶14

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶15

This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.82 dated 30.04.2011, under Sections 323, 498-A and 506, IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Sirsa, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

¶16

In compliance with the order dated 23.09.2013, complainant/respondent No.2, Sonia, has appeared with her counsel Mr.Balraj Singh Sidhu. The statement of the complainant/ respondent No.2, Sonia, has been recorded separately by this Court. In her statement, she has admitted the fact that due to intervention of

¶17

Sharma Seema 2013.12.11 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

Criminal Misc. No. M-31480 of 2013 { 2 }

¶19

the relatives and the respectable people of the society, she has sorted out her disputes and effected a compromise with her husband and thereafter, suffered a statement in that regard before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Fatehabad. She further stated that in consonance with the compromise, she is happily residing with her husband, i.e petitioner No.1. She further deposed that she had no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. It has also been deposed by her that all the terms and conditions of the compromise so effected between her and the petitioners have been materialized.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute and due to intervention of the respectable and the elderly people of the society, both the private factions have sorted out their disputes and effected a compromise.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State though prayed for grant of time on the premise that no police official has come to assist him but after hearing the statement suffered by respondent No.2, Sonia, he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶22

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

¶23

Sharma Seema 2013.12.11 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

{ 3 }

¶25

Criminal Misc. No. M-31480 of 2013

¶26

therefrom, are quashed.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

¶28

The present litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. Complainant/respondent No.2, Sonia, has appeared before this Court with her counsel. She had suffered statement with regard to the compromise so effected between the parties. She has duly been identified by her counsel. She admitted the factum of compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. In the matters of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 888; and Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs. Balbir Raghuvanshi & Anr., 2013(2) RCR(Criminal) 427, Hon'ble the Supreme Court had quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of the matrimonial dispute in spite of the fact that the offences were non-compoundable. There is force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioners are bleak, therefore, pendency of the FIR and continuation of the trial would be a sheer abuse of the process of law.

¶29

In view of the factum of compromise and the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi's and Jitendra Raghu vanshi's cases (supra) the present petition is allowed and

¶30

Sharma Seema 2013.12.11 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

Criminal Misc. No. M-31480 of 2013 { 4 }

¶32

FIR No.82 dated 30.04.2011, under Sections 323, 498-A and 506, IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Sirsa, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶33

December 02, 2013 seema

¶34

(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge

¶35

Sharma Seema 2013.12.11 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Surjeet Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjeet Kumar & 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

Baba Barmanand @ Baba Khichi Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep @ Sonu Vs State of Haryana

Harjinder Singh @ Harwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sakattar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Baljit Singh @ Gogie Vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Kumara and Anr. Vs Boota Singh and Anr.