Yashwant Alias Yashwant Verma And ANR. v. State Of Haryana And ANR.

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 10.07.2024 Yashwant @ Yaswant Verma and another .... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Shivam Sharma, 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. 135 dated 24.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 498-A, 354, 506 and 376 IPC read with Section 34 IPC at Women Police Station, Panipat, District Panipat and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P-3).

Pursuant to the order dated 13.05.2024 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, has submitted his report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 01.06.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Panipat.

-2A 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 the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 is brother-in-law and petitioner No.2 is mother-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2 herein. Marriage of the brother of petitioner No.1 and son of petitioner No.2, namely, Yuvraj with complainant/respondent No.2 was solemnized on 03.04.2021. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not cohabit together and started residing separately since 04.07.2021.

Now better sense has prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into compromise dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P-3), according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question. It is also submitted that a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the complainant and her husband Yuvraj, for divorce by way of mutual consent has also been filed before the Family Court, concerned, wherein first motion statements of the parties have already been recorded on 30.04.2024 and the second motion statement is to be recorded on 13.10.2024. It is submitted that the matter has been settled in a total sum of Rs.11,00,000/-, out of which Rs.5,50,000/- by way of Demand Draft No.583862 dated 26.04.

-3paid on the date of recording of second motion statement. Further, it is submitted that initially, four persons were named in the FIR, however, during investigation two out of them have been exonerated and the challan has been filed only against the present petitioners only. It is further submitted that the petitioners have never been declared as proclaimed offenders.

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 Ist Class, Panipat, 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.

-4Hon'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. 135 dated 24.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 498-A, 354, 506 and 376 IPC read with Section 34 IPC at Women Police Station, Panipat, District Panipat and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P-3), are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

10.07.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No