Sandeep Singh Dhillon v. State Of Haryana And ANR

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 04.07.2024 Sandeep Singh Dhillon .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Ms. Molly Tarunima Tagore, Advocate for Mr. Rishi Nijhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, 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. 205 dated 07.05.2021 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 313, 323,34, 354, 377, 406 and 498-A at Police Station Civil Lines Kaithal, District Kaithal and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure P-4) arrived at between the parties. Pursuant to the order dated 22.05.2024 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal to get their statements recorded. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, has submitted her report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 07.06.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and

-2Sessions Judge, Kaithal.

A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioner 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 petitioner, inter alia, submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is submitted that marriage of the petitioner with complainant/respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 23.11.2016 and one daughter was born out of the said wedlock who is currently in the care and custody of respondent No. 2. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not cohabit together and started residing separately since 18.02.2021.

Now better sense has prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into compromise dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure P-4), 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, 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 13.05.2024. The petitioner had also paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to respondent No. 2-wife, out of the total settled amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner at the time of recording of second motion statements of the parties.

-3filed only against the present petitioner and he has never been declared as proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel has stated that he has 'no objection' in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioner. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner 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

-4relevant 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. 205 dated 07.05.2021 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 313, 323/34, 354, 377, 406 and 498-A at Police Station Civil Lines Kaithal, District Kaithal and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure P-4) arrived at between the parties, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.

04.07.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No