Deepak Negi And Another v. State Of Haryana And Another
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 14.05.2024 Deepak Negi and another .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Bhanu Pratap, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Kunal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Pundir, Advocate for respondent No. 2. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 0222 dated 02.06.2021 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 323/34, 342, 498-A IPC; Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Yamuna Nagar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise deed dated 13.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties. Pursuant to the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, to get their statements recorded. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, has submitted his report along with copies of the statements of the parties vide letter dated 08.04.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge,
-2Yamuna Nagar.
A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have appeared and suffered statements with respect to the compromise which have been found to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion and undue influence. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that marriage of petitioner No. 1-Deepak Negi with complainant/respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 05.10.2020. It is also submitted that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. Learned counsel submits that in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into compromise dated 13.01.2024 (Annexure P-2), according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question. It is further submitted that in terms of compromise Annexure P-2, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
as well as divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed by respondent No. 2-wife against petitioner No. 1-husband, were dismissed as withdrawn vide separate orders of even date i.e. 11.09.2023 (Annexure P-3 and P-4, respectively). Now, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are residing together as husband and wife. Further, it is submitted that the petitioners are the only accused in the present case and they have never been declared as proclaimed offender(s). 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
-3has perused the file.
After perusing the report submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at 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
-4the 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. 0222 dated 02.06.2021 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 323/34, 342, 498-A IPC; Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Yamuna Nagar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise deed dated 13.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.
14.05.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No