Sahil Hooda And ANR v. Union Territory Chandigarh And ANR

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 05.09.2023 Sahil Hooda and Another ....Petitioners

VERSUS

Union Territory Chandigarh and Another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Gaurav Gaur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, APP UT Chandigarh.

Mr. Sudesh Sohi, 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.0007 dated 16.01.2020 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Women Police Station Chandigarh, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 20.08.2020 (Annexure P-2).

2.

On 11.09.2020 the following order was passed : "The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

Prayer made in this petition is for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise.

Notice of motion for 29.10.2020.

Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, APP, U.T. Chandigarh appears on behalf of respondent No.1.

-2In the meanwhile, parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements in the context of genuineness of the compromise on 21.09.2020 and the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court after recording their statements, shall submit its report with regard to genuineness of the compromise viz-a-viz. number of accused persons involved in this case and whether any of the accused has been declared proclaimed offender or not, on or before the adjourned date."

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 11.09.2020, a report dated 07.04.2021 of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh 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 :

-3- "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.

-4servants 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.

-5case 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 petitioners 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 with the criminal proceedings. 9.

Resultantly, FIR No.0007 dated 16.01.2020 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Women Police Station Chandigarh is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 20.08.2020 (Annexure P-2).

10.

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

05.09.2023 ( ALKA SARIN ) jk JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO