Yogesh Kumar Rohilla And ORS. v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14.03.2024 Yogesh Kumar Rohilla and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another ....Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Rahul Makkar, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners, who are husband and in-laws of respondent No. 2complainant have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No.0324 dated 05.07.2022 registered under Sections 323, 377, 406, 498-A & 506 IPC at Police Station Sector-27, Sonipat, District Sonipat (later on during investigation Section 34, 354, 376 of IPC were deleted and Section 377 IPC was added by the police) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of settlement/compromise dated 06.04.2023 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties.

Pursuant to the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonipat, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonipat, has submitted her report along with statements

-2of the parties vide letter dated 14.12.2023 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sonipat.

A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have appeared and suffered statements with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be valid, genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. He further submits that as per report, the petitioners have never been declared as proclaimed offenders.

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

After perusing the report submitted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonipat, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners 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

-3law 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 relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below:- "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.0324 dated 05.07.2022 registered under Sections 323, 377, 406, 498-A & 506 IPC (45 of 1860) amended up to date at Police Station Sector-27, Sonipat, District Sonipat, along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

(NIDHI GUPTA) March 14, 2024 JUDGE rishu Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No