Ankit Bansal And ANR v. State Of Haryana And Another
2023:PHHC:164113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25765-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.12.2023 ANKIT BANSAL AND ANR
...Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr.Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Addl., A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Hemant Hans, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***** MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) CRM-53252-2023 The present application has been filed by the petitioners seeking preponment of hearing of the case.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as prayer made in the application, the same is allowed and the hearing of the main case i.e. CRM-M-25765-2023 is preponed and taken on Board today itself.
CRM-M-25765-2023 1.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.715 dated 27.12.2017 under 498-A, 406 of IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, District Rohtak (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/Divorce decree dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-2).
2.
The aforementioned FIR had been lodged by respondent No.2/complainant and investigation was commenced thereon. 3.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that a compromise have been arrived at between the parties and they have resolved their inter se dispute, which was reduced into writing as compromise/Divorce decree dated 01.02.2023 annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-2. 4.
On the basis of said compromise, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and all the subsequent proceedings on the ground that continuation of such proceedings would be a futile exercise. 5.
This Court vide order dated 19.05.2023 had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements with regard to the genuineness of the compromise stated to have been arrived at between them. The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was also directed to send his/her report along with the said statements. 6.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cumJMIC, Rohtak has sent report vide endorsement No.486 dated 28.07.2023 to this Court along with photocopies of the statements of respondent No.2/complainant Sweety, and joint statement of the petitioner/accused(s) and the Investigation Officer SI-Rajkaran recorded on 21.07.2023. 7.
On the basis of these statements, it is submitted by learned Magistrate that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, out of free Will and without any pressure or coercion. It is also mentioned in the report that apart from the petitioner, there are two more accused named in the FIR but they were discharged during inquiry and challan against them were not presented. No accused has been declared proclaim person in the
present case.
8.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and besides perusing the report by learned Judicial Magistrate, have also perused the record.
9.
It is well settled that the High Court has power to allow compounding of a non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where it feels that the same is required to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Such power is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. In this regard, reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. It is equally settled position of law that the power of High Court in quashing criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation. Such power can certainly be exercised in cases relating to 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. The High Court is required to consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate to put an end to the criminal case and if the answer to such question is in affirmative, then the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. Reference in this context can be made to Hon'ble Apex Court judgments cited as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and Narinder Singh and others vs.
Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466.
10.
In view of the proposition as settled in the aforementioned cases, this Court finds that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse process of the Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case which squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and that allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioner by quashing of the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of legislature enacted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.715 dated 27.12.2017 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, District Rohtak and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise/Divorce dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-2).
11.
Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and statements as recorded before learned Judicial Magistrate.
(MANISHA BATRA) December 20, 2023 JUDGE himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No