Romeet Kashyap v. State Of Haryana And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.16213 of 2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.08.2023 Romeet Kashyap ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Deepkaran Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. H.S. Jugait, Advocate for respondent No.2. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) CRM-32671-2023 1.

This is an application for placing on record the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad as Annexure P-10.

2.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 05.05.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad is taken on record as Annexure P-10.

3.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.0020 dated 27.01.2021 registered under Sections 323, 34, 354-A, 377, 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Women Police Station Faridabad,

-2District Faridabad and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 04.11.2022 (Annexure P-2). 4.

On 29.03.2023 the following order was passed : "The petitioner has filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 0020 dated 27.01.2021 under Sections 323, 34, 354-A, 377, 406, 498-A, 506 of IPC, registered at Women Police Station Faridabad, District Faridabad and all the subsequent proceedings arising there from, qua the petitioner, in light of the compromise effected between the parties. Notice of motion.

On the asking of this Court, Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan Asst. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

Mr. H.S. Jugait, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

Let the statement of the parties concerned be recorded with regard to the aforesaid compromise on 11.05.2023 before the learned Illaga/Duty Magistrate, concerned or on any early date convenient to the said Court. In the event of their statements being recorded, the Court will send copies of the same to this Court before the next date of hearing along with its report. 1.

The number of accused in the aforesaid FIR and to report whether any of the accused has been declared

-3proclaimed offender or any such proceedings have been initiated or pending against him.

2.

Whether the compromise entered between the parties is genuine voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence.

3.

Statement of IO regarding involvement of petitioner in any other FIR.

4. Status of the trial pending before the Court. To await the report, list again on 29.05.2023." 5.

Pursuant to the order dated 29.03.2023, a report dated 09.05.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad has been received by this Court wherein it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that the complainant/respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the parties have since obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 vide judgment and decree dated 05.05.2023.

7.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has reiterated that the parties have since compromised the matter and that he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

8.

The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2012 (10) SCC 303] has held as under :

-4- "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 what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.

However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.

-5servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.

In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

-6case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

9.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052] wherein it has been held that even in non-compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. 10.

In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings. 11.

Resultantly, FIR No.0020 dated 27.01.2021 registered under Sections 323, 34, 354-A, 377, 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Women Police Station Faridabad, District Faridabad is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 04.11.2022 (Annexure P-2). 12.

The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

09.08.2023 ( ALKA SARIN ) jk JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO