Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUKESH BHATIA & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mukesh Bhatia & Ors v. State of Haryana - CRM-42298-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4737 (25 July 2006)

Crl.Misc.No.42298.M of 2006 ::1::

Mukesh Bhatia & others vs State of Haryana Present : Mr.Ravinder Rana, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr.Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana.

Mr.R.S.Rai, Advocate,

for respondent No.2.

******

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, is for quashing of FIR No.841, dated 20.10.2002, registered under Sections 498-A/506 of the IPC, at Central Police Station, Faridabad, on the basis of a settlement, dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure P-2).

Petitioner No.1-Mukesh Bhatia and respondent No.2-Santosh Rawat were married on 19.5.2001. A matrimonial dispute led respondent No.2 to lodge the aforementioned FIR. The husband-petitioner No.1 filed a petition for the grant of a divorce, under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein respondent No.2 was proceeded against exparte. Vide judgment and decree dated 9.11.2005 (Annexure P-1), the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Faridabad granted a divorce to petitioner No.1. However, subsequently, a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 12.7.2006 (Annexure P-2). As per the terms and conditions of the settlement, respondent No.2 accepted the exparte decree of divorce and it was agreed that she would not make any effort to file an application to set aside the exparte decree of divorce. It was also agreed that neither party would initiate any proceedings of any sort against each other. It was further resolved that a petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, praying for the Crl.Misc.No.42298.M of 2006 ::2::

quashing of the FIR, would be filed before the High Court, which would not be opposed by respondent No.2.

The parties are present in Court alongwith their respective counsel. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 accept the correctness of the settlement (Annexure P-2). They acknowledge the fact that they have resolved these matrimonial differences. Respondent No.2 accepts the correctness of the decree of divorce and submits that she has no objection, if the present FIR is quashed.

On the basis of the aforementioned facts, counsel for the petitioners, as also counsel for respondent No.2 contend that as parties have resolved their matrimonial differences, by way of a bona fide settlement, petitioner No.1 has obtained a decree of divorce, and decided to start their lives afresh, it would be in the interest of justice and in the interest of parties that the FIR, as also all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, be quashed.

Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that as the petitioners and respondent No.2 have resolved their differences, the State would not stand in their way and, therefore, has no objection, if the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, emanating therefrom, are quashed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, as also the settlement.

As is apparent from the narrative of facts, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have resolved their differences, pursuant to a written settlement (Annexure P-2). Petitioner No.1 has been granted a decree of divorce, vide judgment and decree, dated 9.11.2005 (Annexure P-1).

Respondent No.2 has accepted the correctness of the aforementioned Crl.Misc.No.42298.M of 2006 ::3::

judgment and decree and has prayed that she has no objection, if the FIR is quashed. As parties have resolved their disputes and have decided to bring the present litigation to an end to enable them to lead their separate lives afresh, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition should be allowed. The settlement, arrived at between the parties, is bona fide. It would bring this unfortunate litigation to an end. In view of the settlement, the complainant and her witnesses are not likely to support the prosecution case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the parties have resolved their matrimonial differences, by way of a bona fide settlement, to permit the prosecution of the FIR to continue, in my opinion, would be an exercise in futility and a wastage of public time and money and an impediment in the petitioners' leading their lives afresh. Quashing of the FIR and all proceedings, emanating therefrom, would be in the interest of justice. It is, therefore, a fit case where this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, to put an end to these futile criminal proceedings.

In view of what has been stated above, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 841, dated 20.10.2002, registered under Sections 498- A/506 of the IPC, at Central Police Station, Faridabad, as also all subsequent proceedings, emanating therefrom, are quashed.

( RAJIVE BHALLA )

July 19, 2006. JUDGE

`kk'


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.