Rohit Gautam Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1140531
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-13-2014
AppellantRohit Gautam
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh .....criminal misc. no.m-39719 of 2013 ....date of decision:13.5.2014 rohit gautam .....petitioner v. state of haryana and others .....respondents ...coram: hon'ble mr.justice inderjit singh ....present: mr.vivek sharma vashisht, advocate for mr.gurcharan dass, advocate for the petitioner. mr.subhash godara, additional advocate general, haryana for the respondent-state. mr.hars.kinra, advocate for the complainant-respondent no.2....inderjit singh, j. this petition has been filed under section 482 cr.p.c.praying for quashing of fir no.318 dated 12.11.2011 (annexure-p.1) registered for the offences under sections 498-a, 406, 420 and 506 ipc at police station sector 5, panchkula and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (annexure-p.2).the marriage of petitioner rohit gautam was solemnized with complainant-anjali arora on 3.2.2006 at panchkula. out of this wedlock, son tanoosh was born on 3.2.2007, who is in the care and custody of the complainant. however, due to temperamental differences between the parties, matrimonial dispute arose and the above said fir was registered for the above mentioned offences against the petitioner. now parmar harpal singh 2014.05.19 10:55 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr. misc. no.m-39719 of 2013 [2].with the intervention of respectable persons, the matrimonial dispute has amicably been resolved as husband and wife have decided to part ways and have filed petition seeking divorce by mutual consent and compromise (annexure-p.2) has been entered into between them. keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned chief judicial magistrate, panchkula for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. after doing the needful, learned chief judicial magistrate has sent his report dated 01.5.2014 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one. complainant anjali arora has stated that she has compromised the matter with the accused, which is out of her free will and consent and without any coercion or undue pressure and she has no objection if the fir is quashed. learned additional advocate general, haryana, on instructions from the investigating officer and learned counsel for complainant-respondent no.3 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their matrimonial dispute, the state would have no objection to the quashing of the fir in view of the law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court. i have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned additional advocate general, haryana and learned counsel for complainant-respondent no.3. in a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a parmar harpal singh 2014.05.19 10:55 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr. misc. no.m-39719 of 2013 [3].loser. rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. after considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak. the hon'ble supreme court in gian singh v. state of punjab and another, 2012 (4) rcr (cr.) 543, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 cr.p.c.can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc.or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute even though they are not compoundable. therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled and the law laid down in gian singh v. state of punjab and another (supra).this petition is allowed and fir no.318 dated 12.11.2011 (annexure-p.1) registered for the offences under sections 498-a, 406, 420 and 506 ipc at police station sector 5, panchkula and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. may 13, 2014. (inderjit singh) judge *hsp* parmar harpal singh 2014.05.19 10:55 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....Criminal Misc.

No.M-39719 of 2013 ....Date of decision:13.5.2014 Rohit Gautam .....Petitioner v.

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents ...Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh ....Present: Mr.Vivek Sharma Vashisht, Advocate for Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr.HaRs.Kinra, Advocate for the complainant-respondent No.2....Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.praying for quashing of FIR No.318 dated 12.11.2011 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).The marriage of petitioner Rohit Gautam was solemnized with complainant-Anjali Arora on 3.2.2006 at Panchkula.

Out of this wedlock, son Tanoosh was born on 3.2.2007, who is in the care and custody of the complainant.

However, due to temperamental differences between the parties, matrimonial dispute arose and the above said FIR was registered for the above mentioned offences against the petitioner.

Now Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.05.19 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.

Misc.

No.M-39719 of 2013 [2].with the intervention of respectable persons, the matrimonial dispute has amicably been resolved as husband and wife have decided to part ways and have filed petition seeking divorce by mutual consent and compromise (Annexure-P.2) has been entered into between them.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise.

After doing the needful, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has sent his report dated 01.5.2014 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

Complainant Anjali Arora has stated that she has compromised the matter with the accused, which is out of her free will and consent and without any coercion or undue pressure and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.3 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their matrimonial dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.3.

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.05.19 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.

Misc.

No.M-39719 of 2013 [3].loser.

Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society.

After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v.

State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc.or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute even though they are not compoundable.

Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled and the law laid down in Gian Singh v.

State of Punjab and another (supra).this petition is allowed and FIR No.318 dated 12.11.2011 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

May 13, 2014.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.05.19 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh