Pratyush Prabeer Mohapatra And Others v. State Of Haryana And Another

2023:PHHC:157627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08.12.2023 Pratyush Prabeer Mohapatra & Ors.

..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana & Anr.

..... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Sahaj Punj, Advocate for Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.245 dated 26.05.2022 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure P-2).

2.

On 02.06.2023 the following order was passed : "The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking quashing of FIR No.245 dated 26.05.2022, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula and

-2all other proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure P-2). Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed her memorandum of appearance, which is taken on record and has not denied the factum of compromise effected between the parties. Adjourned to 18.10.2023.

In the meanwhile, both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate on 01.08.2023 or any other date, as the Court below may decide or fix, for recording their statements, who shall record their respective statements with regard to the genuineness/correctness of the compromise and that the compromise is not the result of any fraud or misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the parties. It would also be verified that besides the accused (petitioners) mentioned in the petition, there is no other accused in the FIR and the parties are not involved or declared proclaimed offender in any other criminal case. The Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate shall send his report through learned Sessions Judge concerned on or before the date fixed before this Court. The petitioners are restrained from releasing an amount to the extent of Rs.30000/- out of the compromise

-3amount, which shall be releas on the final order to be passed by this Court."

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 02.06.2023 a report dated 01.09.2023 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula 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.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that vide order dated 02.06.2023 an amount of Rs.30,000/- was to be handed over at the time of passing of the final order in the present petition and the same has been handed over in cash by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Court today. 5.

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.

6.

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

-4different 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.

-5involving 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."

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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. 8.

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. 9.

Resultantly, FIR No.245 dated 26.05.2022 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure P-2).

10.

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

08.12.2023 (ALKA SARIN) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO