CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----52520 52520 52520 52520----2024 2024 2024 2024 ----1111---- 259 259 259 259 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----52520 52520 52520 52520----2024 2024 2024 2024 Date of Decision:- 08.05.2025 SANDEEP KUMAR SANDEEP KUMAR SANDEEP KUMAR SANDEEP KUMAR ....Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM:---- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Viney Saini, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Sulinder Kumar, DAG, Haryana. Ms. Komal Soni, Advocate for Mr. Vikrant Pujara, Advocate for respondent No.2. AMARJOT AMARJOT AMARJOT AMARJOT BHATTI, J. BHATTI, J. BHATTI, J. BHATTI, J. 1. Petitioner has filed instant petition for quashing of FIR No.0236 dated 09.05.2022 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of IPC (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Sector-27, Sonipat, District Sonipat, in light of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. As per facts of the case, complainant Neha filed written complaint against her husband Sandeep and other members of in-laws’ family for causing harassment on account of their demand for dowry. It is submitted that her marriage was performed with Sandeep on 27.11.2020. SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.05.09 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----52520 52520 52520 52520----2024 2024 2024 2024 ----2222---- Her father had given dowry as per his capacity. There is no child born out of this wedlock. She lived in the matrimonial home for one week after marriage but her mother-in-law started taunting her for bringing less dowry after 2-3 days. There was complaint regarding insufficient dowry and it was further alleged that dowry articles were not of good quality. She remained silent. Behaviour of her husband also changed after few months. He also started harassing her. Even her father-in-law and younger brother-in-law started misbehaving with her and tried to use force on her. She was threatened by her brother-in-law that he will level allegations against her. Her husband also started complaining that he was not given a car in marriage and there was a demand for cash of Rs.5 lakh to purchase a car. All her istridhan and jewellery was in possession of her husband and in-laws family. She started residing in her parental house and thereafter present complaint has been filed. 3. Petitioner filed this petition for quashing of aforesaid FIR on the basis of compromise. Vide order dated 15.01.2025, petitioner and respondent No.2 were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements on the basis of compromise. Detailed report regarding compromise has been received from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat dated 29.01.2025. Statement of respondent No.2 has been recorded, where she confirmed the compromise with petitioner. She confirmed that this compromise has been effected without any pressure, coercion or undue influence and she has no objection regarding quashing of FIR. SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.05.09 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----52520 52520 52520 52520----2024 2024 2024 2024 ----3333---- 4. Learned State counsel filed status report, which is taken on record, subject to just exceptions. 5. Petitioner – Sandeep Kumar also confirmed this fact in his statement. Statement of SI Kuldeep Singh is also recorded who further confirmed that accused is not proclaimed offender in this case. 6. Therefore, from the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, it is clear that compromise has been effected between the parties amicably. They have mutually settled all their claims arisen from matrimonial dispute. They will be able to live in peace and harmony. Parties have decided to part their ways. No purpose would be served with the continuation of criminal proceedings. 7. Gainful reference can be made to the judgment of Larger Bench of Five Judges of this High Court cited in 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052 tilted as Kulwinder Singh and Ors. Vs. tilted as Kulwinder Singh and Ors. Vs. tilted as Kulwinder Singh and Ors. Vs. tilted as Kulwinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., State of Punjab and Anr., State of Punjab and Anr., State of Punjab and Anr., where it was explained that ‘there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the court to exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the section itself i.e. to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.’ 8. Therefore, by relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, no purpose would be served with the continuation of criminal proceedings. Considering these facts, the petition filed by the petitioner is accepted and FIR No.0236 dated 09.05.2022 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of IPC (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Sector-27, Sonipat, District SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.05.09 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----52520 52520 52520 52520----2024 2024 2024 2024 ----4444---- Sonipat and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua petitioner. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well. (AMARJOT BHATTI) (AMARJOT BHATTI) (AMARJOT BHATTI) (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 08.05.2025 snd Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.05.09 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document