Narinder Singh And ORS v. State Of Haryana And Another
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 19.07.2023 Narinder Singh and Others ....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, 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.73 dated 08.08.2018 registered under Sections 323, 354, 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Women Ambala, District Ambala and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P-3).
2.
On 29.11.2022 the following order was passed : "This is the second petition for quashing of FIR No.73 dated 08.08.2018 under Sections 323, 354, 406, 498-A and 506 of IPC, 1860, registered at Women Police Station, Ambala, Annexure P-1, as well as charge dated 01.03.2019, Annexure P-2, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the
-2basis of compromise dated 15.07.2022, Annexure P-3, arrived at between the parties.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of complainant/respondent No.2. He submits that FIR, Annexure P-1, which is an outcome of a matrimonial discord, has been settled by compromise, Annexure P-3, and a petition seeking divorce by mutual consent has been instituted. He submits that there is no child out of the wedlock and petitioner No.1 has made the part payment of permanent alimony in terms of the compromise. He submits that the first petition was withdrawn on 29.10.2022 with liberty to file a fresh petition.
Notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. As per instructions received by her from L/HC Kalpana, challan has been filed against the three accused-petitioners and charge has been framed against them. She submits that the allegation attracting offence under Section 354 of IPC has been levelled against petitioner No.3, though the statement of the complainant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was not recorded. As per further instructions, she submits that some prosecution witnesses have been examined. Mr. Sidhant, Advocate
-3accepts notice on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 and has filed Vakalatnama in Court, which is taken on record. He admits the factum of compromise and does not dispute the statement made by counsel for the petitioners.
The parties and Investigating Officer are directed to appear before the Area Magistrate/Trial Court on 12.12.2022 or on any day thereafter as fixed by the trial court, for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The Area Magistrate/Trial Court shall submit a report on or before the next date of hearing specifying the following:- 1.
the number of accused arraigned in the FIR and how many have appeared before it and have made statements and whether any accused is absconding/P.O. in the case;
2.
the name of the complainant and injured/aggrieved and whether all of them have appeared and made their statements in support of the compromise;
3.
the stage of trial/proceedings;
4.
if the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties.
5.
whether any other criminal case is pending against the accused.
Report of Area Magistrate/Trial Court be awaited for 21.03.2023.
-4Judgment and decree of divorce, if passed, be placed on the record before the next date."
3.
Pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2022, a report dated 12.12.2022 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala 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 petitioners 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
-5with 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.
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.
-6relating 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.
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 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 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,
-7this 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.73 dated 08.08.2018 registered under Sections 323, 354, 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Women Ambala, District Ambala is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P-2).
10.
The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN ) 19.07.2023 JUDGE jk NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO