High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashok Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 4 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 P&H CK 0079

HON’BLE JUDGES
Suvir Sehgal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 323, 406, 498A · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 · Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13B
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 5561 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 405 words

Suvir Sehgal, J

The Court has been convened through video conferencing due to Covid-19 pandemic.

The instant petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.892 dated 07.12.2015 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 323/406/498-A/34 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sirsa City, District Sirsa, on the basis of compromise deed dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between

the parties alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Vide order dated 10.02.2020, the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court to get their statements recorded regarding the

compromise and a report was called for from the Court.

After recording the statements of the accused-petitioners and complainant-private respondents, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, has reported that

the compromise in question is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. The Court has further reported that none of the

accused have been declared as Proclaimed Offenders.

Supreme Court 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 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. The Full Bench of this

Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh

and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 held that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction,

during pendency of the appeal and even in cases involving non-compoundable offences.

In pursuance to the order dated 10.11.2020, the photocopy of the order dated 20.11.2020, whereby the marriage between the petitioner and

respondent No.2 has been dissolved under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been filed. Same is taken on record.

Counsel for the parties are also ad idem that in view of the settlement of the dispute between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted.

In view of the above, no purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.892 dated 07.12.2015 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 323/406/498-A/34 of Indian Penal Code,

1860 at Police Station Sirsa City, District Sirsa and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.