Gaurav Sharma v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 27.07.2023 Gaurav Sharma ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and Another ... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Punit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Manish Dhankharr, 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.57 dated 07.05.2019 under Sections 34, 406, 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at P.S. Women Police, Gurugram, Haryana and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise-deed dated 03.05.2023 (Annexure P-2). 2.

On 17.05.2023 the following order was passed : "1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for seeking quashing of FIR No.57, dated 07.05.2019, under Sections 34, 406, 498-A, 506 of IPC, registered at P.S. Women Police, Gurugram, Haryana, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom,

-2- on the basis of the compromise-deed dated 03.05.2023 (Annexure P-2), effected between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially there were some other accused also, but after investigation of the case, only one accused i.e. present petitioner - Gaurav Sharma, was challaned and accordingly, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted qua him only.

3. He further submits that now the parties have amicably resolved their dispute through a compromise-deed dated 03.05.2023 (Annexure P-2). He further submits that if, proceedings arising from the aforementioned FIR are quashed, both the parties will live their life peacefully.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On asking of the Court, Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

6. Mr. Shikhar Kataria, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and admits execution of the compromise-deed (Annexure P-2).

7. The affected parties are directed to appear on 01.06.2023, before the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, who shall record their respective statements with regard to the compromise and submit a detailed report in that regard along with copies of the statements to this Court on or before the adjourned date, containing the following information as well:- i. Total number of persons arrayed as accused in the case;

ii. Whether all the accused and complainant / victims are party to compromise;

-3iii. Whether any accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender or any such proceedings have been initiated or pending decision;

iv. Stage of the trial/proceedings; and v. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence.

8. To come up on 27.07.2023, awaiting report.

9. Reply by the respondent-State, if any, be filed on or before the next date of hearing. "

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 17.05.2023 a report dated 02.06.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram 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.

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 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

-4- 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.

Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants 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.

-5- 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case 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."

5.

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. 6.

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. 7.

Resultantly, FIR No.57 dated 07.05.2019 under Sections 34, 406, 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at P.S. Women Police, Gurugram, Haryana is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings

-6- arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 03.05.2023 (Annexure P-2).

8.

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

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO 27.07.2023 Yogesh Sharma