Allowed

Karan Mehta v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Feb 2022CRM-M/11603/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR in matrimonial dispute under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Court accepted that dispute was settled via divorce and compromise, finding no purpose in continuing criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.0080 dated 13.06.2019 registered for offences under sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed qua the petitioner.

Karan Mehta Vs State of Haryana and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

CRM-M-11603 of 2021 (O&M)

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

117+232 CRM-M-11603 of 2021 (O&M) Date of decision:22.02.2022

¶5

Karan Mehta ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Haryana and another ... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

¶9

Present:Mr. Anuj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.2.

¶11

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)

¶12

Heard through video conferencing.

¶13

CRM No.5731 of 2022

¶14

Prayer in the application is for placing on record Annexures P-4

¶15

and P-5.

¶16

For the reasons given in the application, it is allowed.

¶17

Judgment and decree of divorce passed by mutual consent on 07.01.2022, are taken on record as Annexures P-4 and P-5, respectively.

¶18

CRM-M-11603 of 2021

¶19

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of FIR No.0080 dated 13.06.2019 registered for commission of offences under Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506 of Indian

¶20

SAVITA KADIAN 2022.02.23 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

CRM-M-11603 of 2021 (O&M) {2}

¶22

Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Women West Gurugram, District Gurugram, (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on basis of compromise deed dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure P-2). Counsel for the petitioner contends that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the complainant-respondent No.2 on 26.10.2016 and there was no issue out of the wedlock. He submits that due to temperamental differences, the parties could not pull along and are residing separately since 25.02.2018. Still further, he submits that the compromise (Annexure P-2) has been effected between the parties and as per terms of the compromise, entire permanent alimony of Rs.2,20,000/- has been paid to the complainant-respondent No.2 and divorce has been granted. He submits that pursuant to order dated 16.03.2021 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before the Trial Court and their statements have been recorded in support of the compromise.

¶23

Upon instructions from L/ASI Poonam, State counsel submits that challan has been presented and charge has not been framed. Counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 does have any objection in case the petition is accepted.

¶24

I have heard counsel for the parties.

¶25

Vide order dated 16.03.2021, this Court directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise and a report was called for from the Court concerned regarding the genuineness of the compromise as also as to

¶26

SAVITA KADIAN 2022.02.23 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶27

CRM-M-11603 of 2021 (O&M) {3}

¶28

whether any PO proceedings are pending against any of the parties. Report in compliance of the order has been received and the relevant extract thereof, is as under:-

¶29

“3. In view of statements, undersigned would like to submit that:-

¶30

i) The compromise has actually been arrived at between the parties amicably and same is genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion and undue influence.

¶31

ii) Accused Karan Mehta and complainant Ananya are party to the compromise.

¶32

iii) Accused Karan Mehta has never been declared proclaimed offender and no other case is pending against the accused Karan Mehta as per statement of Investigating Officer.”

¶33

Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot Versus State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 and in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held that the High Court has wide power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash an FIR or complaint having predominantly civil flavour or involving matrimonial offences and family disputes wherein the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In Ramgopal and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC Online 834, Supreme Court has held that limited jurisdiction to

¶34

SAVITA KADIAN 2022.02.23 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶35

{4}

¶36

CRM-M-11603 of 2021 (O&M)

¶37

compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶38

FIR (Annexure P-1) is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute, which has been settled and the marriage has been dissolved. Continuation of criminal proceedings would not serve any purpose and deserve to be set aside.

¶39

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.0080 dated 13.06.2019 registered for commission of offences under Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Women West Gurugram, District Gurugram, (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.

¶40

February 22, 2022 savita	(SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes
Whether Reportable	Yes

¶41

SAVITA KADIAN 2022.02.23 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Karan Mehta v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Mehta v. State of Haryana and Another

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

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Bala Devi Vs State of Haryana and Another

Om Parkash and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Kajal Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mannu Batta and Others Vs U.T. Chandigarh and Another

Balinder Singh @ Ramlu and Anr. Vs State of Haryana