Nawal And Others v. State Of Haryana And Another
-1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.11.2024 Nawal and others ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***
Present:
Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Vikas Saroha, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.
Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.117, dated 20.03.2024, under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sector 56, District Gurugram (Haryana) (Annexure P-1) qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) supported by an affidavit of complainant dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2.
FIR in question was got registered by complainantrespondent No.2, namely, Balesh and the investigation commenced
-2thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the complaint in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice. 3.
This Court vide order dated 12.08.2024 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report. 4.
In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram has sent the report dated 03.10.2024 to this Court. With the report, she has also annexed the original statement of complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Balesh and original joint statement of petitioners, namely, Nawal, Balram Singh, Kaushalya, Manjeet Singh and Sarjeet Singh recorded on 30.09.2024 She has also annexed the original statement of ASI Parveen Kumar recorded on 30.09.2024. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties. It has been further mentioned that the accused persons were
-3never declared as proclaimed persons and the case is at the stage of awaiting challan.
5.
Reply dated 29.10.2024 by way of an affidavit of Abhimanyu Lohan, Assistant Commissioner of Police, EOW, District Gurugram on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed by learned State counsel today in the Court and the same is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioners. 6.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram.
7.
A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of BNSS would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 BNSS. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
8.
Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of
-4Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.
9.
Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:- "61. 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.
-5offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
10.
Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing of the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 528 of BNSS.
-611.
As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR No.117, dated 20.03.2024, under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sector 56, District Gurugram (Haryana) (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, namely, Nawal, Balram Singh, Kaushalya, Manjeet Singh and Sarjeet Singh on the basis of compromise dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) supported by an affidavit of complainant dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure P-3). Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. 12.
Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 06.11.2024 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No