Sahil And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 17381 P&H

CRM-M-18672-2022                                                            -1-

230         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                             CRM-M-18672-2022
                                             Date of Decision: 21.12.2022

Sahil and another                                   ..... Petitioners

                                 Versus

State of Haryana and another                        .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:    Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate, the petitioners.
            Mr.Brijesh Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
            Mr. Ravinder Phogat, 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.291 dated 26.08.2021, registered under

Sections 406, 498-A, 377, 376, 511, 342, 354, 506, 34 IPC, Sections 8 and

12 of POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10, 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage

Act, at Police Station IMT, Rohtak and all the subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure

P-2).

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that

offence under Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10, 11 of

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act were added in the FIR for the reason that

the wife was less than 18 years of age. He has submitted that the dispute

between both the sides is totally matrimonial in nature and hence,

prosecution of the petitioners for the offences under POCSO and

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act is totally abuse of the process of the

Court. He has submitted that for the welfare of both the sides, with the

1 of 7

intervention of the respectables, the parties have resolved their dispute

amicably and now the husband and wife have filed a petition under Section

13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which first motion statements

have already been recorded and the case is fixed for recording of second

motion statements on 12.04.2023. He further submits that in view of the

facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution of the petitioners is

nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has affirmed the

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

Reply by way of affidavit of Mahesh Kumar, HPS Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Rohtak dated 15.12.2022 filed in Court, is taken

on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a demand

draft No. 638214 dated 17.11.2022 amouting to Rs.1,00,000/- in the name

of respondent No.2, which learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed

over to respondent No.2, who is present in person.

FIR in question was lodged 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 Compromise Deed, annexed as

Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are praying

that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an

abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of

justice.

This Court vide order dated 19.07.2022/21.11.2022 directed the

2 of 7

parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording their

statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate

was also directed to send its report.

In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Rohtak, has sent its report dated 05.12.2022 to this Court. With the report,

he has also annexed original statement of respondent No.2-Soni and joint

statement of the petitioner Sahil and Gyanender Kumar and statement of

ASI Hawa Kaur recorded on 30.11.2022. On the basis of the statements,

learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak has concluded in its report that

the matter has been settled between the parties amicably/voluntarily without

any pressure or coercion. It is further mentioned in the report that except the

present petitioners, there is no other accused involved in the present case. It

is also mentioned in the report that neither the accused before this Court

have been declared proclaimed offender nor any other criminal case is

pending against them

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record

and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, 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.

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

3 of 7

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 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 a serious impact on society.

4 of 7

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."

Evidently, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband

and wife and dispute between both the parties is totally matrimonial in

nature and has been settled by them amicably. The husband and wife have

filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in

5 of 7

which first motion statements have already been recorded. Although

offences alleged under Sections 376, 377 IPC, Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO

Act and Sections 9, 10, 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act are serious

in nature, but keeping in view the nature of the dispute, which is totally

matrimonial and amicable settlement effected between the parties, this

Court exercises its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the present

FIR.

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, in the nature of cases as prescribed 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.

This Court is conscious of the fact that Sections 376/377 IPC,

Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10, 11 of Prohibition of

Child Marriage Act come in the ambit of heinous and non-compoundable

offences. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances and in the larger

interest of both the parties and to secure the ends of justice, the Court deems

it appropriate to use its discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in favour of the

parties.

In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in

hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial

precedents and hence, FIR No.291 dated 26.08.2021, registered under

Sections 406, 498-A, 377, 376, 511, 342, 354, 506, 34 IPC, Sections 8 and

12 of POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10, 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage

6 of 7

Act, at Police Station IMT, Rohtak and all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of

compromise (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.

Petition stands allowed.

                                                (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
21.12.2022                                          JUDGE
sharmila            Whether Speaking/Reasoned   :     Yes/No
                    Whether Reportable          :     Yes/No




                                7 of 7