Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DINESH NANDA & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dinesh Nanda & Ors v. State of Haryana & Anr - CRM-55661-M-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 11514 (30 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRIMINAL MISC.NO. 55661 M of 2003

DATE OF DECISION: December 05, 2006

Dinesh Nanda and others

.....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Karamjit Verma, Advocate,

for respondent No.2.

****

RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)

The prayer made in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.606/2002 under Sections 406, 498A IPC, registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt., on the basis of compromise, Annexure P-2. An affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2 has also been filed in Court today and the same is taken on record.

Petitioner No.1 married respondent No.2 on 14.8.2000 at Ambala.

They were blessed with son, who is aged about 2 years. The differences arose between the married couple and the matrimonial relations broke down. They are stated to be living separately since 22.6.2002. The abovesaid FIR was lodged by respondent No.2. She had also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Crl.Misc.No.55661 M of 2003 :{ 2 }:

Marriage Act, which ultimately was changed into petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Divorce between the parties has been granted on the basis of mutual consent. During the pendency of the civil as well as criminal proceedings, the matter has been compromised between the parties. As per the terms of compromise, a sum of Rs.15 lacs towards gift articles and other expenses incurred have been paid to respondent No.2 by petitioner No.1. Maruti Esteem car has also been returned. Even in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 in the Court, these facts have been conceded. It has further been mentioned that respondent No.2 will not have any objection if the FIR registered at her instance is quashed. Since the parties have agreed to end their dispute and differences by arriving at a compromise, it would be futile to allow the present proceedings to continue. Even otherwise in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported as Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute can be ordered to be quashed. No useful purpose will be served in allowing these proceedings to continue.

This petition is as such allowed and FIR No.606/2002 under Sections 406, 498A IPC registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt. and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed.

December 05,2006 ( RANJIT SINGH )

khurmi JUDGE

Crl.Misc.No.55661 M of 2003 :{ 3 }:


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.