Criminal Misc.
not M-32954 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.
not M-32954 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : December 20, 2012 Pooja & Anr...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & Anr...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.John Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Punjab.
*** Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.351 dated 28.06.2010, under Sections 384, 385, 420 and 506 read with Section 120-B, IPC, registered at Police Station, Sector-7, Faridabad, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).Vide order dated 17.11.2012, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear before the learned trial court on 29.11.2012 for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise.
The said court was also directed to send its detailed report in that regard on or before the date fixed by this Court.
In compliance thereof, the petitioners as well as respondent No.2/complainant-Yogesh Kumar did appear before the learned court below and got recorded their respective statements Criminal Misc.
not M-32954 of 2012 (O&M) 2 with regard to the compromise.
Respondent No.2-Yogesh Kumar deposed that the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioner at his behest.
He further stated that with the intervention of relatives and respectable of the society, compromise had been arrived at between him and the petitioneRs.He also stated that in terms of the compromise, a petition for grant of mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was presented before the learned Family Court, Faridabad.
He also deposed that the different cases filed by each other were agreed to be withdrawn.
He further deposed that he had no objection if the impugned FIR was quashed.
The similar statements with regard to the compromise were suffered by the petitioneRs.Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Krishan Kumar, Police Station, Sector 7, Faridabad, also admits the factum of compromise.
He after going through the statements suffered by the private parties and the report, sent by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, submits that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the wife of respondent No.2/complainant.
He further submits that due to temperamental differences, they could not pull on well and multi-farious litigations had started.
He also submits that due to intervention of the respectable and the elderly Criminal Misc.
not M-32954 of 2012 (O&M) 3 people of the society, both the factions have sorted out their dispute and effected a compromise.
He also states that a petition in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has also been presented before the learned Family Court, Faridabad, in which the date for second motion is fixed in January, 2013.
He also submits 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.
Heard.
The present criminal litigation had arisen out of a matrimonial dispute.
The petitioners and respondent No.2- complainant have sorted out their dispute and effected a compromise.
The statements of the affected parties have already been recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.
Learned counsel for the State has admitted the factum of compromise.
He has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
In the above backdrop, the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioners are bleak, therefore, the pendency of the FIR and the continuation of the trial would be a sheer abuse of the process of law.
Keeping in view the factum of compromise and the ratio of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR Criminal Misc.
not M-32954 of 2012 (O&M) 4 (Criminal) 888, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.351 dated 28.06.2010, under Sections 384, 385, 420 and 506 read with Section 120-B, IPC, registered at Police Station, Sector-7, Faridabad, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
December 20, 2012 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge