Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neeraj And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(243) CRM-M-27895-2021
Date of Decision: 13.12.2021
Neeraj & others --Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & another --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ.
Present:- Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vishal Kashyap, D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Mohit, Advocate for
Mr. Vikrant Rana, Advocate for
respondent no.2.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of FIR No.0203 dated 25.5.2017 under Sections 34,
406, 498-A, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station, Urban Estate, Rohtak as
well as order dated 21.8.2018 (Annexure P-2) vide which petitioners were
declared proclaimed persons and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 24.12.2020(Annexure P-3).
FIR in question was got registered by 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 the compromise
(Annexure P-3). On the basis of the same, 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
1 of 5
and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
This Court vide orders dated 22.9.2021 directed the parties to
appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate/trial Court for recording their
statements, as contended before the Court, and the Magistrate/trial Court
was also directed to send its report.
In pursuance of the same, learned ACJM, Rohtak sent her
report dated 25.10.2021 to this Court. With the report she has also annexed
the original joint statement of complainant Jyoti, and petitioners/accused
Neeraj, Hans Raj and Indu recorded on 13.10.2021 as also statement of PSI
Narender recorded on 22.10.2021. On the basis of the statements, learned
ACJM, Rohtak has concluded in the report that the parties have entered into
a compromise voluntarily and that there is no other accused except the
petitioners and no other criminal case is pending against the accused. It is
further informed that initially accused/petitioners Neeraj, Hansraj and Indu
were declared as proclaimed persons vide order dated 21.8.2018 but
thereafter vide order dated 3.9.2021 passed by learned Special Judge,
Rohtak the order declaring the accused/petitioners as proclaimed persons
has been set aside. In view of this the prayer of the petitioners regarding
quashing of order dated 21.8.2018 has become redundant.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned ACJM, Rohtak.
A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. 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 320 Cr.P.C.
is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for
compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
2 of 5
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.
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
3 of 5
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 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."
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
4 of 5
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 the FIR would be securing the ends of
justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners informs the Court that the
marriage in question has been dissolved through a decree of divorce and
even the permanent alimony has been paid to the complainant.
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.0203 dated 25.5.2017 under Sections 34, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC,
registered at Police Station, Urban Estate, Rohtak and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis
of the compromise (Annexure P-3). 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.
Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
13.12.2021
lucky Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
