Chand Singh and others vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

The four petitioners herein have approached this Court with this petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 130 dated 16.11.1994 of Police Station Sadar Ambala, registered under Section 306/34, IPC, on the report lodged by the second respondent herein (Impleaded as per orders in Cr. Misc. 15726/1995 dated 15.9.1995). In this report, the second respondent alleged that his daughter Rajvinder Kaur was married to the first petitioner Chand Singh and that she committed suicide on account of the harassment by her husband Chand Singh (1st petitioner) and other petitioners. The petitioners, as already pointed out, prayed for quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings on the ground that they had been falsely implicated and also on the ground that the complainant himself has given an affidavit that the FIR was lodged by him under some misunderstanding. The newly impleaded second respondent has appeared in Court today in person and also filed an affidavit today in court stating that he has filed the FIR under some wrong impression and misunderstanding, that the matter has been compromised at the intervention of some respectables, and that the misunderstanding has been removed. He has also stated that he does not want to proceed with the case further, and that he wants to compound it.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the decision of this Court in Jasbir Singh v. Amrit Kaur, 1993(1) Recent CR 177 , contends that the FIR and the consequent proceedings should be quashed in the circumstances. That was a case where a complaint was lodged by the wife against the husband under Sections 406 and 498A, IPC. Subsequently, the parties arrived at a compromise. This Court held that though the offence under Section 498A, IPC, is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court, the prosecution is bound to end in smoke as the complainant would not support the allegations contained in the complaint in view of the compromise. It opined that the pendency of the proceedings would simply amount to a futile exercise and harassment to the petitioneraccused. So observing, this Court quashed the complaint, the summoning order and the other proceedings. The petitioners relied upon the decision of this Court in Ramesh Chand v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) Recent CR 626 , where the Court, under similar circumstances, quashed the FIR although the offence was registered under Section 498A, IPC. In these circumstances, taking into consideration the affidavit of the second respondent and the decisions relied upon by the petitioners, I find that this petition has to be allowed.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.