Nishant Gupta v. State Of Haryana And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.11.2023 Nishant Gupta ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and Another ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Advocate for Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Kapil Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the 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.69 dated 24.11.2018 registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Woman Police Station, Panchkula, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the parties have since compromised the matter.

2.

On 02.08.2023 the following order was passed : "CRM-31149-2023 This is an application for preponment of date of hearing in the main case from 16.11.2023 to an early date. Notice of the application.

-2On the asking of the Court, Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of non-applicant/respondent No.1. Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of non-applicant/petitioner. They state that they have no objection if the application is allowed.

In view of the above, the application is allowed and with the consent of learned counsels the main case i.e. CRMM-59396-2022 is taken on Board today itself. CRM-31488-2023 This is an appliation for issuance of direction to get the statements of the parties recorded since the parties have compromised the matter.

Notice of the application.

On the asking of the Court, Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of non-applicant/respondent No.1. Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advcoate accept notice on behalf of non-applicant/respondent No.2. They state that they have no objection if the application is allowed. In view of the above, the present application is allowed. CRM-M-59396-2022 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.69 dated 24.11.2018 under Sections 323, 406,

-3498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Woman Police Station, Panchkula, and all other consequential proceedings arising there-from on the ground that the parties have since compromised the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the parties have since compromised the matter and a petition (Annexure P-2) under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed for grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Parties have got their statements recorded of first motion on 21.11.2022, which has been appended with the petition as Annexure P-3, wherein it has been stated that the parties have resolved all their disputes. Learned counsel would further contend that in the divorce petition (Annexure P2), in para 13, it has specifically been mentioned that a quashing petition would be filed for quashing of the FIR No.69 dated 24.11.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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'sjudgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052].

-4Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and states that the parties have voluntarily entered into a compromise and statements of the second motion are to be recorded on 04.08.2023. He further states that respondent No.2 has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. List on 16.11.2023.

Meanwhile, the parties are directed to appear before the concerned CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court on 04.08.2023, or on any other date convenient to the Court, for recording of their statements. The CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court is directed to record the 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 as stated in the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Annexure P-2) 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.

-53) Whether any proclamation proceedings are pending against either of the parties."

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 02.08.2023 a report dated 30.09.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula 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.

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

-6their 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.

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.

-7proceedings 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."

5.

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.

-86.

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. 7.

Resultantly, FIR No.69 dated 24.11.2018 registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Woman Police Station, Panchkula is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise between the parties.

8.

The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

16.11.2023 (ALKA SARIN) Deepak Patwal JUDGE

1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

2. Whether reportable: Yes/No