Jatin v. State Of Haryana And Another
-2023:PHHC:142261IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.11.2023 JATIN .... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
.... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :
Mr. Dev Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Jasleen Chahal, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. L.K. Narang, Advocate for Mr. Ankur Dua, 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.133 dated 27.04.2022, registered at Police Station Sector-6, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure P-4).
2.
On 04.05.2023 the following order was passed : "This is a petition for quashing of the FIR No.133 dated 27.4.2022 under Sections 376(2)(n), 376 (2)(f)
-2IPC and Sections 3 (1)(g), 3 (1)(s) and 3(2) (v) of SC and ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station Sector 6, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise said to have been entered into between the parties dated 26.5.2022 (Annexure P-4).
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the complainant submit that after lodging of the FIR on 27.4.2022, the complainant and the petitioner married on 29.4.2022. Ever since they have been residing happily.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from DSP Pawan Kumar, submits that final report in the case has not been filed yet.
Since the issues between the parties stand settled and a compromise has also been effected between them dated 26.5.2022 (Annexure P-4) for quashing of the FIR in question, they are allowed to get recorded their statements.
Let the parties appear before the trial Court/Duty Magistrate on 24.5.2023 or any other date convenient to the Court, for recording their statements with regard to compromise.
-3- The trial Court/Duty Magistrate is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing as regards authenticity and genuineness of compromise after recording statements of all the parties. The trial Court/Duty Magistrate shall also furnish the following information:
1.Whether there is any other accused, apart from the petitioners arrayed in this petition.
2. Whether there is any other complainant or affected/aggrieved party, apart from the respondents arrayed in the petition.
3. Whether the parties are involved in any other criminal case.
4. Whether any of the parties has been declared a proclaimed offender.
The trial Court/Duty Magistrate shall send his/her report through the Sessions Judge concerned on or before the date fixed, i.e., 28.9.2023."
3.
Pursuant to the order dated 04.05.2023, a report dated 03.06.2023 of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bahadurgarh 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 has no objection to the quashing
-4of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ananda D.V. Vs. State & Anr. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 3423] to contend that where after registration of the FIR the parties have since settled their disputes and are now happily married and living together, the FIR under Section 376 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise.
5.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has reiterated that the parties have since compromised the matter and are living happily together 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 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
-5criminal 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.
-6wrong 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. 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."
7.
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
-7non-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.133 dated 27.04.2022 registered at Police Station Sector-6, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, on the basis of compromise dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure P-4).
10.
The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
07.11.2023 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE NOTE:
Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No