Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatender Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Another on 15 November, 2022
CRM-M-17620-2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(278) CRM-M-17620-2021
Date of Decision: 15.11.2022
Jatender Singh and others --Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:- Mr. Saleem Malik, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Kirpal Singh Thakur, AAG, Haryana.
None 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.65 dated 14.02.2019, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A,
506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra along
with consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
This Court vide orders dated 28.04.2021 had issued notice of
motion for 19.05.2021, however, no one appeared on behalf of respondent
no.2 despite service. Even today the position is same.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after
registration of the present FIR, both the parties have amicably resolved the
dispute and arrived at compromise before the Mediation and Conciliation
Centre of this Court on 20.11.2019. He submits that in pursuance to the
compromise/agreement arrived, both the parties had filed petition under
Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and thus, marriage was dissolved by
decree of divorce dated 26.03.2021. He further submits that the custody of
the child as agreed would be with the mother and the alimony of
1 of 6
Rs.2,00,000/- has also been paid to the respondent-wife. He has submitted
that both the sides had agreed that all the inter se litigations would be
brought to an end and thus, the present FIR was also agreed to be quashed
by way of compromise. He submits that as on date, the petitioner-husband
has fulfilled all his obligations in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the compromise arrived at between them. However, despite notice from
this Court, the respondent-wife has not appeared to give the statement for
quashing of the present FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the cases of
Mohd. Shamim V. Smt. Nahid Begum, 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 697 and
Ruchi Agarwal V. Amit Kumar Aggarwal, 2004(4) R.C.R (Criminal) 949
to substantiate his arguments.
Learned State counsel has already placed on record the reply
and submitted that the investigation is complete, challan has been presented.
He submits that the parties have entered into compromise. He has submitted
that the parties made statement before the Investigating Officer on
05.06.2022 that they have entered into compromise.
Heard.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal's
(supra) has held that in such like situation where the intention of the wife is
to harass the petitioner-husband, continuation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court
especially when the petitioner-husband has already performed his part of
settlement and the respondent-wife is not coming forward to make statement
in support of the compromise. Under these circumstances, the validity of the
compromise cannot be negated.
2 of 6
After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it
is apparent that the parties have duly settled the dispute amicably and notice
was issued to respondent No.2-wife and the service was also effected,
however, respondent No.2-wife did not appear and on 20.05.2022, fresh
notice was again issued but again the respondent-wife did not appear and
on 14.09.2022, the case was adjourned for today to await her appearance.
However, respondent again remained absent despite service having been
effected upon her.
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
3 of 6
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 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
4 of 6
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
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.65 dated 14.02.2019, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 of IPC,
registered at Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra along with
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the
5 of 6
petitioners on the basis of compromise. 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)
15.11.2022 JUDGE
m.sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
