Allowed

Manoj and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Aug 2024CRM-M/907/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Matrimonial dispute FIR quashed on the basis of an amicable settlement deed and mutual-consent divorce. The Magistrate found the compromise genuine and voluntary; the State raised no objection. Relying on precedent, the High Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 69 dated 05.09.2018 and all consequential proceedings quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of the settlement deed dated 11.12.2023.

Manoj and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-907-2024 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

242 CRM-M-907-2024

¶4

Date of Decision: 02.08.2024

Manoj and others

.… Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another .... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶10

Present: - Mr. Amit Gautam, Advocate for Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

Ms. Kiran Devi Bamel, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 69 dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 323, 34, 377, 406, 494, 498-A and 506 IPC (Sections 354 and 354-A IPC deleted) at Women Police Station, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of copy of joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short- ‘the Act’)-cum-settlement deed dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure P-2), arrived at between the parties.

¶15

Pursuant to the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, has submitted his report along with copies of statements of the parties vide letter dated

¶16

RISHU KATARIA 2024.08.05 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶17

CRM-M-907-2024 -2-

¶18

20.07.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

¶19

A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have appeared before the learned trial Court and suffered statements with respect to the compromise which have been found to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion and undue influence.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner , inter alia, submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 is husband; petitioners No. 2 and 4 are the parents-in-law; and petitioners No. 3 and 5 are the brothersin-law/ Jeth and Devar, respectively of the complainant/respondent No.2 herein. Marriage of petitioner No.1 with complainant/respondent No.2 was solemnized on 03.02.2012. Two daughters were born out of the said wedlock, who are currently in the care and custody of respondent No. 2- complainant. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not cohabit together and started residing separately. Now better sense has prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have settled all their disputes amicably, according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question. It is also submitted that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2-complainant have also been granted decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act. Further, it is submitted that present petitioners are the only accused in the present case and they have never been declared as proclaimed offenders.

¶21

RISHU KATARIA 2024.08.05 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶22

CRM-M-907-2024 -3-

¶23

Learned State counsel has stated that he has ‘no objection’ in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioners.

¶24

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.

¶25

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶26

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in “Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab”, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the proceedings where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

¶27

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another”, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced here-inbelow:-

¶28

RISHU KATARIA 2024.08.05 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶29

CRM-M-907-2024

¶30

-4-

¶31

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.”

¶32

In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 69 dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 323, 34, 377, 406, 494, 498-A and 506 IPC (Sections 354 and 354-A IPC deleted) at Women Police Station, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of copy of joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act-cum-settlement deed dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure P-2), arrived at between the parties, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

¶33

02.08.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶34

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶35

RISHU KATARIA 2024.08.05 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Manoj and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj and Ors. 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

Harsh Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Another

Konnal Bhatti Vs Poonam Konnal Bhati

Poonam Konaal Bhatti Vs Konaal Bhatti and Another

Baljit Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Priyanka Vs Kumar Gaurav and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs Kavita