Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nitika Goel Alias Nitika Beriwala And ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 November, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144358
CRM-M No.38669 of 2024 -1-
282
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.38669 of 2024
Date of Decision: 06.11.2024
Nikita Beriwal @ Nikita Goel and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate
for respondents No.2 & 3.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.496, dated 11.11.2019, under Sections 323, 380, 452, 454, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sector 5, District Panchkula along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise deed dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure P-2).
2. FIR in question was got registered by the complainant- respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2024 21:14:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144358 CRM-M No.38669 of 2024 -2- compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the complaint in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 12.08.2024 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
4. In pursuance to the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula has sent the report dated 25.09.2024 to this Court. With the report, she has also annexed the original joint statement of complainant/respondent No.2 & respondent No.3, namely, Amit Goel and Rita Goel and original joint statement of the petitioners, namely, Nikita Beriwal @ Nikita Goel, Purushottam Beriwala, Bina Beriwala, Ashok Kumar Gupta and Ajay Kumar Gupta recorded on 13.08.2024. She has also annexed the report dated 13.09.2024 of Investigating Officer, namely Brijesh Kumar. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties appears to have been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion ant out of their free will. It has been further mentioned that the present FIR was registered against five accused i.e. the petitioners. It has further been mentioned that as per the report of the police, no accused has been declared proclaimed 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2024 21:14:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144358 CRM-M No.38669 of 2024 -3- offender in any case and no other criminal case is pending against the accused. It has further been mentioned that FIR No.2/2019 under Sections 498A/406 of IPC, at Police Station East Vidhannaga, Kolkatta, West Bengal has been registered against accused Nikita Beriwala.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula.
6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of BNSS would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 BNSS is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the BNS.
7. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.
3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2024 21:14:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144358 CRM-M No.38669 of 2024 -4-
8. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:-
"61. 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. 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 a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2024 21:14:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144358 CRM-M No.38669 of 2024 -5- 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, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
9. Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing of the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR No.496, dated 11.11.2019, under Sections 323, 380, 452, 454, 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2024 21:14:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144358 CRM-M No.38669 of 2024 -6- 148, 149 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sector 5, District Panchkula along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, namely, Nikita Beriwal @ Nikita Goel, Purushottam Beriwala, Bina Beriwala, Ashok Kumar Gupta and Ajay Kumar Gupta on the basis of compromise deed dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure P-2). Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.
11. Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
06.11.2024 JUDGE
rittu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2024 21:14:58 :::