Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravikant Shrivastav vs State Of Haryana And Another on 3 March, 2022
CRM-M-46407-2021 -1-
257
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-46407-2021
Date of Decision: March 03, 2022
Ravikant Srivastav
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Govind Rana, Advocate for
Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Vishal Kashyap, DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Karanvir Hooda, Advocate for
Mr.Abhey Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
........
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL)
Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via
Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per
instructions.
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of FIR No.279, dated 19.03.2018, under Sections 498-
A, 406, 34 and 323 IPC, registered at Police Station Thanesar City, District
Kurukshetra, Annexure P-1, and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent
No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the
1 of 6
intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they
resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise, annexed
as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioner is 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 FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
This Court vide orders dated 24.11.2021 directed the parties to
appear before the concerned 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 Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, sent its report dated 06.01.2022 to this
Court. With the report she has also annexed the original statements of
complainant-Anjana Bindla @ Anjana Srivastava, petitioner -Ravikant
Shrivastav and SI Roshan Lal, recorded separately on 06.01.2022.
On the basis of the statements, learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kurukshetra, has concluded in the report that it appears that the
parties have entered into a compromise without any coercion, undue
influence or pressure and the same is genuine and voluntary and the
complainant has no objection in case the present FIR against the accused is
quashed. It is further submitted that there were four persons arrayed as
accused in the present FIR, however, charge sheet was filed only against
accused-petitioner Ravikant Srivastava as the remaining accused persons
were found innocent and Section 34 IPC was deleted and charge sheet was
filed under Sections 323, 406, 498-A IPC. Neither of the accused was ever
2 of 6
involved in any other case nor declared proclaimed offender and there was
only one victim/complainant namely, Anjana Bindla @ Anjana Srivastava,
as per statement of the I.O. concerned.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra.
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
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
3 of 6
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 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
4 of 6
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
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.
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.279, dated 19.03.2018, under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 and 323
IPC, registered at Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra,
(Annexure P1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are
quashed qua the petitioner 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
5 of 6
Court below.
Petition stands allowed.
March 03, 2022 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
meenuss JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No
6 of 6
