Anil Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 16312 P&H

CRM-M-4250-2022                                               -1-

234
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                  CRM-M-4250-2022
                                                  Date of decision : 09.12.2022

Anil Kumar

                                                                      ...Petitioner

                                         Versus

State of Haryana and another

                                                                    ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:     Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Vishal Malik, AAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

             ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of

FIR No.130 dated 10.08.2017 registered under Sections 313/498-A/506/34

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 313 and 34 of IPC have been

deleted and Section 406 of IPC has been added later on) at Women Police

Station, Rohtak and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the

basis of compromise.

On 09.05.2022, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased

to pass the following order:-

"Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed his power of attorney, which is taken on record.

1 of 5

Service is complete.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that second motion in the petition seeking divorce by mutual consent is to be recorded during this week.

The parties are directed to appear before the Area Magistrate/Trial Court on 27.07.2022 or on any date 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 10.08.2022.

Judgment and decree of divorce, if passed, be placed on the record before the next date of hearing.

                                                          Sd/-(SUVIR SEHGAL)
            09.05.2022                                            JUDGE"

In pursuance of the abovesaid order, a report has been

submitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak. The relevant portion

of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"1. Five persons were arraigned in the FIR but during investigation, named accused Kanwar Singh (father-in- law),

2 of 5

Raj Bala (mother-in-law), Sunita and Sonu (sisters- in-law) were declared innocent. Final police report was filed against only one accused i.e. husband namely Anil Kumar. He is neither an absconder nor he has been declared PO in any case.

2. There is only one victim/aggrieved and she herself is the complainant. Her name is Pooja Kumari. She has made statement before Court in support of the compromise.

3. The case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Only chief examination of complainant has been recorded so far.

4. The compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties.

5. No other criminal case is pending against the accused."

A perusal of the said report would show that the compromise

has been found to be genuine, without any pressure or undue influence. It

has been stated that the statements of the complainant as well as the accused

have been recorded in the case and both have stated that the matter has been

compromised and they have no objection in case the FIR is quashed. It is

further stated that the statement of the complainant has been made

voluntarily without any fear, coercion or pressure.

A perusal of above report would show that although, initially,

there were five accused persons but the challan has only been presented

against the present petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner was not declared proclaimed offender in the present case.

Learned counsel for the State, as per instructions has stated that the said fact

is correct. It is further submitted that decree of divorce dated 22.08.2022 has

also been granted to the petitioner and respondent No.2 in a petition filed

under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3 of 5

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has again reiterated that

the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest of all

the persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity between the

two parties.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the file. After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this

Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled 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", reported as 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 prosecution 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 the Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of

Punjab and another", reported as 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

4 of 5

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. XXX---XXX"

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is

allowed and FIR No.130 dated 10.08.2017 registered under Sections

313/498-A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 313 and 34 of

IPC have been deleted and Section 406 of IPC has been added later on) at

Women Police Station, Rohtak and all the subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom on the basis of compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua the

petitioner.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand

disposed of in view of the abovesaid judgment.

09.12.2022                                             (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan                                                     JUDGE


              Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No

              Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                 5 of 5