Rahul And Another v. State Of Haryana And Another

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-9294-2024 Date of Decision: 08.05.2024 Rahul and another .... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Sidhant Bhonsle, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, A.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Aneeshh Chopra, Advocate for Ms. Nandini Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. NIDHI GUPTA , J. (ORAL) The petitioners who are husband and mother-in-law of respondent No. 2-complainant have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 144 dated 09.10.2020 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Women Police Station, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 27.10.2023 alongwith affidavit (Annexures P-2 and P-3) effected between the parties.

Pursuant to the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate

 1st Class, Jagadhri, has submitted his report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 14.03.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri on 15.03.2024. A perusal of the above said report would show that initially six persons, namely, Rahul, Neelam Devi, Meenakshi, Pardeep, Chitra and Roshal Lal were named in the FIR. However, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against the present petitioners only. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 have appeared and suffered statements with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be valid, genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties.

He further submits that as per report, the present petitioners are the only party to the compromise and have never been declared as proclaimed offender. There is no other criminal case pending against the petitioners. Learned State counsel has stated that he has 'no objection' in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioners.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal

  proceedings deserve to be quashed.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the proceedings where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced here-inbelow:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court."

In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 144 dated 09.10.2020 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Women Police Station, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana and all consequential proceedings

 arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 27.10.2023 alongwith affidavit (Annexures P-2 and P-3), are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

08.05.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No