Allowed

Meet Sain & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Mar 2018CRM-M/16956/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of FIR under Sections 323, 498-A IPC based on a settlement between parties. Court allowed petition quashing FIR citing harmonious relations and Supreme Court precedents on encouraging matrimonial settlements.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 351 dated 18.09.2014 under Sections 323, 498-A, 406, 506, 354D IPC and consequential proceedings.

Meet Sain & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-16956 of 2016 (O&M) [ 1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-16956 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 23, 2018

¶4

Meet Sain and others ......................................................Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others .......................................... Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

¶8

Present: Mr. Robin Singh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Ashok S. Chaudhry, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

¶10

Mr. Jasjeet Singh Virk, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶11

LISA GILL, J. (Oral)

¶12

CRM-10879 of 2018

¶13

Prayer is for impleading Ms. Sonia D/o Surinder Singh as

¶14

petitioner No.4.

¶15

Notice of the application.

¶16

Mr. Jasjeet Singh Virk, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of

¶17

respondent No.2.

¶18

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Ashok S. Chaudhry, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

¶19

It is noticed that the applicant-Sonia D/o Surinder Singh has been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board on 05.06.2015. This fact is specifically mentioned in the report dated 15.11.2015 submitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur, Sonipat.

¶20

Rupinder Kaur 2018.04.02 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

Crl. Misc. No. M-16956 of 2016 (O&M) [ 2 ]

¶22

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that his client does not wish to proceed against the applicant and neither has any appeal been filed against her acquittal till date and respondent No.2 undertakes not to file any appeal against her acquittal as well.

¶23

In this view of the matter, there is no necessity to implead Smt. Sonia as petitioner in this case.

¶24

Application is disposed of.

¶25

CRM-10880 of 2018

¶26

Judgment and decree dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Sonipat (Annexure P5) is taken on record subject to just exceptions.

¶27

Application is disposed of.

¶28

CRM-M-16956 of 2016

¶29

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.351 dated 18.09.2014 under Sections 323, 498-A, 406, 506, 354D IPC registered at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonipat, along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 06.05.2016 (Annexure P2) arrived at between the parties.

¶30

It is informed that petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has since been allowed on 31.05.2017 (Annexure P5). The entire settled amount has been received by respondent No.2.

¶31

Pursuant to order dated 27.09.2016, the parties appeared before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur, and their statements were recorded on 03.11.2016. Respondent No.2 stated that she has compromised the matter with all the accused-petitioners out of her own free

¶32

Rupinder Kaur 2018.04.02 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

Crl. Misc. No. M-16956 of 2016 (O&M) [ 3 ]

¶34

will, without any kind of pressure, threat or coercion and she has no objection to the quashing of the above-said FIR against all the petitioners. Joint statement of the petitioners in respect to the compromise was also recorded.

¶35

As per report dated 08.11.2016 received from the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur, it is opined that the compromise between the parties is genuine, voluntarily arrived at out of their own free will. It is specifically mentioned that the 4^th accused-Sonia D/o Surinder Singh was acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board on 05.06.2015. None of the petitioners is reported to be a proclaimed offender. Statements of the parties are appended along with the said report.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reaffirms and verifies the factum of settlement between the parties as well as the fact that petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has since been allowed. The entire settled amount, it is stated, has been received by respondent No.2. It is reiterated that respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the above-mentioned FIR against all the petitioners.

¶37

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Kuldeep Singh, has stated that the State has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶38

In Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, a five member Bench of this Court has observed as under:-

¶39

“ 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 Criminal Procedure Code is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn,

¶40

Rupinder Kaur 2018.04.02 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

Crl. Misc. No. M-16956 of 2016 (O&M) [ 4 ]

¶42

enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice ”.

¶43

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State

¶44

of Haryana , 2003(4) SCC 675 has observed that it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

¶45

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the above-said FIR as no useful purpose would be served by continuance of the present proceedings. It will merely lead to wastage of precious time of the court and would be an exercise in futility.

¶46

This petition is, thus, allowed and FIR No. 351 dated 18.09.2014 under Sections 323, 498-A, 406, 506, 354D IPC registered at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonipat, along with all consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed.

¶47

23.03.2018 rupi

¶48

( LISA GILL ) JUDGE

¶49

Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable: Yes / No

¶50

Rupinder Kaur 2018.04.02 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Meet Sain & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meet Sain & 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

Gurminder Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Baljeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sukhjeet Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Harpreet Singh @ Sonu Vs State of Punjab

J.B. Singh Vs Labh Singh

Rohit Gupta Vs State of Punjab and Anr.