Saroj And Others v. State Of Haryana And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8628 of 2023 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION :- 02.02.2024 Saroj and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2. *** SUMEET GOEL , J.
(Oral) 1.
By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 521 dated 12.12.2022 under Sections 313,323,34,506 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar Sonipat, District Sonipat and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/settlement dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.
On 28.03.2023, the following order was passed: "Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the FIR is an outcome of the family dispute. The complainant/respondent No.2 is daughter of petitioner No.1, and sister-in-law/nanad of petitioner No.2 and sister of petitioner No.3. It was only on account of dispute over properties that the present FIR was lodged. The matter has now been amicably settled between the
parties by way of a compromise dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure P2). Based on this, the instant petition for quashing of FIR has been filed.
Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they are directed to appear before the trial Court/Duty Magistrate on 28.04.2023 or any other date convenient to the Court, for recording their statements with regard to compromise.
The trial Court/Duty Magistrate is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing as regards authenticity and genuineness of compromise after recording statements of all the parties.
The trial Court/Duty Magistrate shall also furnish the following information:
1.Whether there is any other accused, apart from the petitioners arrayed in this petition.
2.Whether there is any other complainant or affected/aggrieved party, apart from the respondents arrayed in the petition.
3. Whether the parties are involved in any other criminal case.
4.Whether any of the parties has been declared a proclaimed offender.
The trial Court/Duty Magistrate shall send his/her report through the Sessions Judge concerned on or before the date fixed, i.e., 17.08.2023."
3.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 11.05.2023 from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- "After perusal of the statement of the complainant, accused as well as IO the court is of the considered view that:-
1. There is no other accused, apart from the petitioners arrayed in the petition.
2. There is no other complainant or affected/aggrieved party, apart from the respondents arrayed in the petition.
3. The parties are not involved in any other criminal case.
4. The parties have never been declared as proclaimed offender. The compromise arrived at amongst the parties is genuine, out of free will and without any coercion, force or undue influence."
4.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners is quashed. 5.
Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-2). I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
7.
This Court and Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Court and this Court is : (a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code. (b) However, wider the power greater the caution. (c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the
matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.
(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.
(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation. (g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise.
Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as :-
(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.
(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature. (iii) The parties have compromised.
(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.
(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.
9.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 521 dated 12.12.2022 under Sections 313,323,34,506 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar Sonipat, District Sonipat and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/settlement dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure P-2), is, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 02.02.2024 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No