ARUN SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of CRM No.M -9123 of 2015 preferred by Arun Singhal, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of FIR No.348, dated 12.07.2013, under Sections 323, 354, 506 and 509 IPC, registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat (Annexure P -2) as well as final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P -3) and all subsequent proceedings thereof.

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that marriage between petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on June 24, 2012 at Samalkha, District Panipat, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Matrimonial dispute arose between the couple and their relation became strained. Even petitioner made to sign a panchayati agreement with a view to dissolve their matrimonial relations on September 11, 2012, at the time, respondent No.2 as well as her parents exercised coercion and pressure upon him in collusion with local police authorities. However, respondent No.2 on receipt of a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/ - sworn an affidavit dated September 11, 2012 admitting that she has received the said amount against permanent alimony and further that she would not claim anything from petitioner and will not file any complaint or court case against petitioner in future. Even respondent No. 2 has already obtained divorce on the basis of aforesaid compromise. It has further been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that despite receipt of a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/ - and giving a specific undertaking that she will not file any criminal complaint or court case against petitioner, by twisting facts and concocting a false story, lodged a complaint with police, which ultimately formed basis of FIR, quashing of which has been sought through this petition.

(3.) WHILE referring to statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by investigating officer after registration of case, it has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that presence of respondent No.2 at the spot i.e. place of occurrence unfolded by her is not established. Police in connivance with respondent No.2 and her parents hurriedly presented the challan. In fact, FIR does not disclose offence and allegations made as well as in complaint are so absurd, inherently and improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach at a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against petitioner. It is well settled where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking, vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, criminal proceedings deserves to be quashed.