#FIRQuash Archives - Prime Legal

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Reena Devi and Another v. State of Haryana

2023:PHHC:098595

Coram HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

FACTS:

In the present instance, an FIR has been filed against the two petitioners based on a complaint submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Mahendergarh. The complaint alleges that petitioner No.1 submitted her nomination documents for the election of Municipal Councilor, Ward No.14, while petitioner No.2 submitted his nomination papers for the election of Municipal Councilor, Ward No.5 of the Municipal Committee in Mahendergarh on 11.05.2016. These submissions were supported by their affidavits. However, both petitioners failed to disclose their ownership of property No.B-11/221/1 Shopping Complex, located at Old Ram Leela Ground, Mahendergarh, in the aforementioned affidavits. This omission led to the submission of false affidavits along with their nomination papers, indicating a deliberate intent, and thereby, they are accused of committing offenses under Sections 199 and 420 IPC (Indian Penal Code) and Sections 13-D and 125-A of the Representation of the People Act.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

It cannot be asserted that the petitioners obtained ownership of property No.B-11/221/1, a shopping complex at Old Ram Leela Ground in Mahendergarh, through the agreement to sell stated in Annexure P-4, which is an unregistered document. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners were not proprietors of the aforementioned property when they submitted their nomination papers and corresponding affidavits. The State has not successfully demonstrated that the information provided by the petitioners in their affidavits was incomplete or that they withheld essential details about their assets during the nomination filing. The prosecution has also not convincingly proven any malicious intent on the part of the petitioners when they submitted their nomination papers and accompanying affidavits. Both petitioners were elected as Municipal Councilors. Those dissatisfied with the election results, including losing candidates or other concerned parties, had a viable option to file election petitions in accordance with Section 75 of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules 1978 to challenge the election of the petitioners. Given these reasons, the current petition was granted.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Srijan Gargreenadeviandanrvsstateofharyanaon1august2023-484630

Title: SH. MANOJ BISWAS AND ANR. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Date of Decision:17th July, 2023

+ CRL.M.C. 4808/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Introduction

Delhi high Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner as the parties have voluntarily without any fear, force and coercion, and have decided to give quietus to the proceedings. It was a matrimonial dispute which has been amicably settled.

Facts of the case

The current appeal was submitted under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in an effort to have the case FIR No. 571/2019, which was filed at PS New Ashok Nagar under Sections IPC 498A/406/506/34 IPC, quashed as a result of a resolution. According to the case’s briefly stated facts, the petitioner No. 1 husband and respondent No. 2 wife were wed on February 5, 2018, in accordance with Hindu rituals and traditions. However, various temperamental issues and disagreements developed between the parties, and as a result, the parties have been living apart since 16.06.2019. There is one male child, Pranav Biswas, born on December 31, 2018, out of wedlock.

The parties agree that the party violating the conditions will be subject to contempt proceedings in the event of a breach, violation, or intentional or deliberate disobedience. The parties additionally concur that the defaulting party will return any advantages, rights, and benefits that have accrued in its favour, putting the parties back in the position they were in prior to the parties’ reaching such a settlement agreement.

the husband and wife have agreed that after their statements have been recorded in the first motion petition but before their statements have been recorded in the second motion petition, the wife will withdraw her current petition under Section 125 Cr.PC and complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act from the relevant courts. It is claimed and agreed upon by the parties that the respondents must file a quashing petition pursuant to section 482 Cr.P.C. within 15 days after the marriage’s dissolution date, and the wife must assist in the quashing.

Analysis of the court

According to the provisions of the agreement, the Petitioner No. 1 was required to pay the Respondent No. 2 a total of Rs. 3,00,000 in order to fully and completely resolve their differences. The first Rs. 1,90,000 was previously paid, and the second Rs. 1,10,000 was paid today using a demand draught with DD No. 460743 dated July 14, 2023, drawn on the Central Bank of India and delivered to respondent No. 2.

It is important to note that the current agreement will not influence the child’s future legal rights.

Respondent No. 2 is present and claims that she entered into the settlement willingly and without being coerced, threatened, or under any other duress. IO has correctly named the parties.

The Apex Court has often ruled that in marriage disputes, if the parties have peacefully resolved the issue between themselves, courts must support that decision. B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, and Yashpal Chaudhrani and Others v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8179, may be used as authority.

Considering that the parties reached a settlement willingly and without coercion, fear, or other pressure, I believe there would be no use in continuing the trial. Instead, they have chosen to put an end to the proceedings. It was a marital disagreement that was peacefully resolved.

The case FIR No. 571/2019 filed at PS New Ashok Nagar under Sections IPC 498A/406/506/34 IPC and all further procedures are invalidated in light of the aforementioned arguments.

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to view Judgement

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has invalidated the FIR lodged against the accused councillors, who were charged with failing to disclose their assets

Delhi high Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner as the parties have voluntarily without any fear, force and coercion, and have decided to give quietus to the proceedings.