Manish Kumar v. State Of Haryana And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 20.09.2023 Manish Kumar ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr.
... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :
Mr. Tapan Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Sandeep Yadav, 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.0008 dated 31.01.2018 registered under Sections 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Jatusana, District Rewari, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 03.11.2018 (Annexure P-2).
2.
On 27.02.2020 the following order was passed : "Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the FIR along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Power of attorney filed on behalf of respondent No.2 today in the Court, is taken on record.
On September 26, 2019, this Court had passed the following order:- Learned counsel for the private respondent states at the bar that respondent No.2 after receiving benefit of settlement has refused to make compliance of the orders of this Court. In the light of this insolence shown by the private respondent, necessitates issuance of bailable warrants to the said respondent in the sum of `5,000/- with one surety in the like amount, which should be directed through SHO, Police Station Jatusana, District Rewari, with endorsement in red ink to ensure due compliance.
List on 27.02.2020, on which date the petitioner shall also put in appearance before this Court." Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 is present in the Court.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions from his client who is present in the Court, submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Moreover, joint petition filed by the parties under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been allowed and decree of divorce by way of mutual consent has been granted by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewari, vide judgment dated 06.05.2019. In view of the aforesaid stand of the parties and the fact that the matter has been compromised between them, the
parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their respective statements with regard to compromise/settlement on 16.04.2020.
The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit a report along with copies of statements of the parties, on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information as well:
(i) Number of persons arrayed as accused in FIR; (ii) Whether any accused is proclaimed offender; and, (iii) Status of trial/proceedings, and (iv)Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence.
For awaiting report, adjourned to 13.07.2020." 3.
Pursuant to the order dated 27.02.2020 a report dated 19.06.2020 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli, 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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the parties have since obtained a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
5.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has reiterated that the parties have since compromised the matter 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 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.
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.
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 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. 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.0008 dated 31.01.2018 registered under Sections 498-A, 34 of IPC at Police Station Jatusana, District Rewari is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 03.11.2018 (Annexure P-2). 10.
The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
20.09.2023 Yogesh Sharma ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO