Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 594 (PNJ)

Pankaj Nagpal v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-25

SABINA

body2010
Judgment Sabina, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `cr. P. C.) seeking quashing of FIR No.59 dated 22.1.2005 registered under Sections 323/506 IPC at Police Station NIT District faridabad (Annexure P1) and all further proceedings arising there from and for permission of compounding of all offence on the basis of compromise. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Respondent no.2,however, did not put in appearance despite service. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the complaint had been filed by mother of Payal, who is divorced wife of petitioner No.1-Pankaj nagpal. A matrimonial dispute arose between petitioner No.1-Pankaj Nagpal and his wife Payal. Payal, Crl. Misc. No. M-40600 of 2007 2 wife of petitioner No.1 lodged FIR No.1027 dated 13.12.2004 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC. The said fir was quashed by this Court vide order dated 17.8.2007 on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. Pankaj Nagpal and Payal got a decree of divorce dated 14.3.2007 on the basis of mutual consent under Sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. 3. Learned State counsel has not controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioners have sought quashing of FIR in question on the basis of a compromise effected between the parties. In normal circumstances, the FIR on the basis of a compromise is quashed in case , the respondent/complainant appears and admits the factum of compromise. Facts of the present case are peculiar. Respondent No.2 has not appeared in this Court despite service. The allegations levelled in the FIR in question are that the respondent as well as her daughter were threatened by the petitioners that in case they did not withdraw FIR No.1027 dated 13.12.2004 under Sections 498-A, 406/34 IPC, they would be taught a lesson. FIR No.1027 dated 13.12.2004 has however, been quashed by this Court vide order dated 17.8.2007 in Criminal Misc. , No.40597-M of 2007 and the following order was passed:- " In this case, complainant-respondent No.2 had been served but she had not come present. This is petition for quashing FIR No.1027 dated 13.12.2004 under Sections 406,498-A,34 of IPC registered at Crl. Misc. , No.40597-M of 2007 and the following order was passed:- " In this case, complainant-respondent No.2 had been served but she had not come present. This is petition for quashing FIR No.1027 dated 13.12.2004 under Sections 406,498-A,34 of IPC registered at Crl. Misc. No. M-40600 of 2007 3 Police Statin NIT, Faridabad. The case was registered at the instance of Payal, respondent No.2. Reply on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed to the fact that challan has been presented and charges framed and case is fixed for evidence. On behalf of the petitioners, certified copy of judgment under Sec.13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act in between Pankaj nagpal and Payal has been produced showing that parties had effected the compromise and then have taken mutual divorce. In the statement made before the court, Payal had undertaken to cooperate with petitioner No.1 i. e. Pankaj nagpal to get the present FIR quashed. " under these circumstances, if the FIR in question is not quashed, then it will be futile exercise and no useful purpose would be served and it will not be in the interest o justice Accordingly, present petition is allowed. FIR No.1027 dated 13.12.2004 under Sections 406,498-A, 34 of IPC registered at Police Station NIT Faridabad and all consequent proceedings shall stand quashed. " 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a certified copy of the order dated 14.3.2007 whereby the marriage between petitioner No.1 and Payal was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent and the same reads as under:- "present:both the petitioners in person. Mr. T. C. Sharma and Ravi Dahiya counsel for petitioner crl. Misc. No. M-40600 of 2007 4 No.1 mr. Ashok Kumar Bhatia counsel for petitioner No.2. Efforts for reconciliation have been made for making the parties to live together but have failed as both the petitioners have submitted that they have compromised all their disputes and have decided to part ways and take a divorce. Joint statement considered. Heard. Perused. Vide separate judgment of even date the present second motion petition under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is hereby allowed. The marriage between both the petitioners is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent with effect from today i. e.14.3.2007. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The marriage between both the petitioners is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent with effect from today i. e.14.3.2007. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to the record room. Sd/-Ms. Nivedita Anil Sharma, adj, Delhi 14.3.2007" 5. From these orders dated 17.8.2007 and 14.3.2007 reproduced above, it is evident that the parties have arrived at a compromise. Affidavit of Nutan Talwar (Annexure P4) is on record and a perusal of the same reveals that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. Since respondent No.2 has not appeared despite service to deny the contents of the said affidavit, a presumption arises that the said affidavit was genuinely executed by respondent No.2, especially, in the facts and circumstances of crl. Misc. No. M-40600 of 2007 5 the present case reproduced above. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.59 dated 22.1.2005 under Sections 323/506 IPC registered at Police Station NIT,district Faridabad (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.