Amit Shokeen v. State Of Haryana And Another
2024:PHHC:027862 Page 1 of 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-57579-2023 (O&M) Date of order: 27.02.2024 Amit Shokeen .....Petitioner(s) Vs.
State of Haryana & Another .....Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Monu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG Haryana.
Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***** Nidhi Gupta, J.
The prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.10 dated 02.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 34, 354-A, 406 and 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Women, Sector 51, Gurugram; and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/settlement agreement dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties.
Vide order dated 16.11.2023, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the parties to appear before Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in terms of certain parameters given in the aforesaid order dated 16.11.2023, with regard to the compromise/settlement agreement dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-3). In terms of the order dated 16.11.2023, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, parties have appeared before the Court of
2024:PHHC:027862 Page 2 of 4 learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-cum-Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurugram and as per his report dated 22.02.2024 submitted to this Court, both the parties have got recorded their respective statements in Court. A perusal of the above said report would show that petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant appeared and suffered statements with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be voluntary, genuine, and out of free will.
Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that present FIR emanates from a matrimonial dispute between the parties, which was registered by respondent No.2/complainant/wife against her husband/present petitioner and father-in-law. Challan was filed against both the accused. However, accused No.2/father-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant has expired on 28.09.2021 as has been noted in zimni order dated 06.01.2022 (Annexure P2) passed by learned JMIC, Gurugram, and vide the said order, proceedings against deceased father-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant were dropped. It is further submitted that present petitioner has not been declared as proclaimed person in the present case.
Learned State Counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant do not dispute the above said submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.
After perusing the report submitted by the Illaqa Magistrate, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled
2024:PHHC:027862 Page 3 of 4 between the petitioner and the complainant. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the proceedings where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "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
2024:PHHC:027862 Page 4 of 4 secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court."
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition is allowed and FIR No.10 dated 02.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 34, 354-A, 406 and 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Women, Sector 51, Gurugram; and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/settlement agreement dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.
Petition stands disposed of.
Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 27.02.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No