Sandeep Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 11.08.2023 Sandeep Kumar ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr.
... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :
Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Mohit Kakkar, 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.300 dated 30.05.2019 registered under Sections 294, 323, 328, 34, 354-A(1)(i), 406, 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Police Station Hisar Sadar, District Hisar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of a compromise dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-2). 2.
On 30.09.2022 the following order was passed : "The petitioner is seeking to quash the FIR No.300 dated 30.05.2019 registered at Police Station Hisar Sadar, District Hisar on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that initially, the FIR was registered against the petitioner
-2and his three other relatives. However, the other relatives were found innocent during the course of investigation and challan has been presented only against the petitioner under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 05.12.2018, but no child has been born from the wedlock. The matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled in terms of the compromise contained at Annexure P-2. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have instituted a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent in the Family Court, Hisar, wherein statements of the parties at the stage of first motion have been recorded. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.15 lac to respondent No.2 on account of permanent alimony. A sum of Rs.
7,50,000/- has already been paid and the balance amount of Rs.7,50,000/- shall be paid when the statements of the parties is recorded at the stage of second motion. Respondent No.2 shall withdraw the petitions filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. No other case is pending between the parties. Notice of motion.
Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Mohit Kakka, has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2, filed vakalatnama and admitted the fact of compromise.
The parties are directed to appear before the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements with regard to compromise/settlement on
-318.10.2022. It is made clear that if for any reason, the statements are not recorded on that date, the same may be recorded on any subsequent date to the convenience of the Court concerned.
The learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information:-
1. Number of persons arraigned as accused in FIR;
2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender;
3. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence.
4. Whether the accused persons are involved in any other case or not.
5. The trial Court is also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR.
To await the report, list again on 18.01.2023." 3.
Pursuant to the order dated 30.09.2022 a report dated 18.10.2022 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar 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.
-44.
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.
-5or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of 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.
-6secure 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.300 dated 30.05.2019 registered under Sections 294, 323, 328, 34, 354-A(1)(i), 406, 498-A, 506 of IPC at Police Station Hisar Sadar, District Hisar is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-2).
10.
The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO 11.08.2023 Yogesh Sharma