Bhupinder Pal Singh v. State Of Haryana And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43854-2023 (O&M) Date of decision : 08.12.2023 Bhupinder Pal Singh ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr.
... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :
Mr. Saransh Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Sajal Bansal, 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.325 dated 10.08.2021 registered under Sections 120-B, 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120-B IPC was deleted and Section 506 IPC was added later on) at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure P-2).
2.
On 02.09.2023 the following order was passed :
"This is a petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.325 dated 10.08.2021 registered under Sections 120-B, 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120-B IPC was deleted and Section 506 IPC was added later on) at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure P2). Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the parties have since compromised the matter vide compromise dated 29.05.2023, a copy of which has been appended with the petition as Annexure P-2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the parties have filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in which statements of the parties on the first motion stand recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in "Gian Singh V/s State of Punjab & Anr." [2012 (10) SCC 303] and the Larger Bench's judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052].
Notice of motion.
Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1State. Mr. Sajal Bansal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and has filed power of attorney, which is taken on record. He has also reiterated that the parties have since entered into the compromise voluntarily and willingly and that
respondent No.2 would have no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed.
List on 08.12.2023.
Meanwhile, the petitioner and respondent No.2 shall appear before the concerned CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court on 26.09.2023, or on any other date convenient to the Court, for recording of their statements. The CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court is directed to record statements of the parties to its satisfaction qua the genuineness of the compromise and that the same is not the result of any undue influence, coercion or pressure of any kind. A report, along-with the statements of the parties, on the following points be sent to this Court before the next date of hearing:
1) Whether the settlement/compromise dated 29.05.2023 has been freely entered into between the parties without any undue influence, coercion or pressure of any kind.
2) Whether any other criminal cases are pending against the parties.
3) Whether any proclamation proceedings are pending against either of the parties."
3.
Pursuant to the order dated 02.09.2023 a report dated 11.10.2023 of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kalka 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.
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.
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.325 dated 10.08.2021 registered under Sections 120-B, 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120-B IPC was deleted and Section 506 IPC was added later on) at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure P-2).
10.
The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
08.12.2023 ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO