Jaswinder Singh And Others v. State Of Haryana And Another



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-19877-2024 Date of Decision: 16.07.2024 Jaswinder Singh and others .... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. J.S.Thind, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, A.A.G., Haryana.

Ms. Seema Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2. NIDHI GUPTA , J. (ORAL) The petitioners who are the husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2 herein, have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 93 dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498-A/406/506/377/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Woman, District Fatehabad and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise and affidavit both dated 16.04.2024 (Annexures P-2 and P-3). Pursuant to the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehabad, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehabad, has submitted her report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 30.05.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Fatehabad on 31.05.2024.

  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 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 and respondent No.2 are the only party to the compromise and have never been declared as proclaimed offenders. There is no other criminal case pending against the petitioners.

It is pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No.2complainant that the date for recording second motion statement is 21.10.2024 whereupon the petitioner No. 1 has to pay remaining amount of Rs.5 lacs to the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the petitioner No.1 will duly pay the remaining amount of Rs.5 lacs on 21.10.2024 i.e. the date of recording second motion statements of the parties in a joint petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court. 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, Fatehabad, 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. 93 dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498-A/406/506/377/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Woman, District Fatehabad and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise and affidavit both dated 16.04.2024 (Annexures P-2 and P-3), are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

16.07.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No