AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Through the instant petition, petitioners seek quashment of FIR No. 44/2019 dated 27.01.2019, registered in Police Station, Domana for commission of offences under Sections 341, 354, 294 RPC against them.
The petitioners challenge the impugned FIR being illegal, false and registered with malafide intention, inter alia on the following grounds:-
"(a) That it is apparent from the face of the impugned FIR that in the impugned FIR both the real brothers have been made as accused and the offences under Sections 354 and 294 have been registered against both the petitioners. As per the judgment titled State of Haryana vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal pronounced by the Apex Court it is said that when it is apparent from the face of the FIR that a prudent man can understand that the offences could not be committed by the accused. In the present case both the petitioners being booked under Sections 354 and 294 RPC a prudent man cannot understand that both the brothers could commit the offences under Sections 354 and 294 RPC on this ground the FIR under challenge is required to be quashed.
(b) That for the last so many years the petitioner No. 1 is in close contact with the daughter of the complainant in the FIR impugned and there was very close understanding between each other but now when this fact came to the knowledge of the family of the respondent No. 3/complainant in the FIR, the complaint has been filed to take vengeance and to spite with the petitioners. It is also settled principle of law held by the Apex Court of India that when the FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive to harass and to take vengeance with the petitioners, this Court has to exercise its powers to invoke the provision of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR. In the present case the mobile phone SIM which has been given by the petitioner No. 1 himself to Poonam is either in the name of Rohit or in the name of Komal. The FIR being registered with malafide intention and to take vengeance with the petitioners it is not factually correct what is stated in the FIR so the FIR impugned is required to be quashed.
(c) That it is also apparent from the face of the complaint that the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive to harass the complainant and also to take vengeance with the petitioners as in the FIR the date/year of birth of the complainant Nirmal Kumari has been shown as 1992 as per which age of complainant comes to 26 years when even age of the elder son of the complainant Nirmal Kumari is more than 24 years who has been serving in CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) and Poonam daughter of complainant Nirmal Kumari is elder to the elder son of the complainant. The age of Poonam must have been around 26 years when the complainant has shown her age of 26 years. The complainant in the FIR under challenge has been shown of 26 years with intention that it could be apparent that the offences under Section 354&294 RPC have been committed by the petitioners who are having an age of 28&30 years. It is humbly submitted that the fact remains that the age of the complainant in the FIR Nirmal Kumari respondent No. 3 herein is more than the age of the mother of the petitioners and must be around about 55 years. On this score also the FIR under challenge is required to be quashed.
(d) That it is apparent from the face of the complaint that there is no any ingredient which constitute the offence as mentioned in the FIR under challenge, as such, the FIR under challenge is required to be quashed."
On notice, the other side has appeared and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has expressed that the respondent have no objection in case proceedings herein are quashed. It was further stated that the parties have compounded the matter as there were counter cases filed by them. Statement of respondent No. 3 was got recorded through the Registrar Judicial of this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners and complainant-respondent No. 3 herein have made a joint submission that as further prosecution in the matter is likely to prove abortive proceedings initiated in terms of impugned FIR, therefore the same be quashed. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General has submitted that relief cannot be granted having regard to the public policy and the general impact of the matter on the society.
Heard rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
Considering the instant petition in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013(2) R.A.J. 429, Jitendera Raghuvanshi and ors. v Babita Raghuvanshi and anr., where commission of the offence under section 498-A RPC had been alleged to have been compounded between the parties, I am of the opinion that the settlement herein is required to be encouraged while also taking note of the fact that there is nothing available to infer that the same is not genuine.
In the instant case, it can be ex-facie deduced that parties are not interested to proceed ahead with the prosecution and intend to put up at their respective residences amicably. Having regard to the principles laid down in Jitendera Raghuvanshi's case (supra), I am of the opinion that exercise initiated by the parties is bonafide and in their general interest so it would be in the ends of justice to allow the instant petition.
Accordingly, by invoking the powers in terms of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. and the proceedings initiated in terms of FIR No. 44/2019 dated 27.01.2019, registered in Police Station, Domana for commission of offences under Sections 341, 354, 294 RPC, against the petitioners shall be treated to have been quashed.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Police Station, for information.
Disposed of alongwith connected IA in the above said terms.