Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 29 November, 2022
CRM-M-46694-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-46694-2021
Date of Decision: 29.11.2022
RAVINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ... PETITIONERS
VS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI
Present : Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Amit Shukla, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Tushar Gera, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
VIVEK PURI, J.(ORAL)
The petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR No.0290 dated
08.05.2016 under Sections 323, 34, 341, 342, 354 (B), 452, 498-A, 506 IPC
(Section 307 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Rattia, District
Fatehabad on the basis of compromise.
On 22.04.2022, the parties were directed to get their statements
recorded before the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court.
In compliance of the order dated 22.04.2022, the statements of
the parties have been recorded and the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fatehabad has sent the report and the relevant portion whereof is
reproduced here-in-below:-
"4. Regarding point no.1, as per the final
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., in FIR no.290
dated 08.05.2016 under Sections 323, 34, 341,
342, 354(B), 452, 498-A, 506, 307 IPC P.S. Ratia
on the complaint of Harpreet Kaur wife of
Ravinder Singh Kamboj, only two accused have
1 of 5
been challaned by the prosecution namely 1.
Ravinder Singh Kamboj and 2. Richhpal Singh.
The complainant Harpreet Kaur wife of Ravinder
Singh had stated in her complaint that her mother-
in-law and her father-in-law had asked her
husband and Devar on which they have tried to
kill her by causing injuries and putting a string
around her neck and to cut her nerve and this
attempt to kill her has been done on account of
demand of vehicle and cash. The pre-arrest bail of
Amarjit Kaur and Kanwaljit Singh had been
allowed by the court on 20.05.2016. The accused
Kanwaljit Singh son of Hajara Singh father-in-law
and Amarjit Kaur wife of Kanwaljit Singh mother-
in-law have not been challaned as they have been
found innocent in the investigation of the case.
5. Regarding point no.2, none of the accused
is proclaimed offender.
6.Regarding point no.3, regarding
genuineness of the compromise, complainant
Harpreet Kaur daughter of Harbhajan Singh has
stated in her statement in the court on SA on
18.05.2022 that she has compromised with the
accused out of her free will and without any
pressure. This compromise is in the interest of both
the parties to the case. Ravinder Singh, her
husband and his brother Richhpal Singh have also
given their statement in the court on 18.05.2022
that they have compromised with complainant
Harpreet Kaur and the same is out of their free will
and without any pressure and it is in the interest of
both the parties to the case. Therefore, from the
above, it is clear that the compromise is genuine,
voluntarily and without any coercion or undue
influence.
2 of 5
7.Regarding point no.4, whether the accused
persons are involved in any other case or not, it is
submitted that SI Rameshwal Dayal had given his
statement on 24.05.2022 that accused Ravinder
Singh and Richhpal Singh are not found involved
in any other case. Retired ASI Mohan Lal has also
given his statement on 26.05.2022 that he had
investigated the case and report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was filed in the court against both the
accused namely Ravinder Singh and Richhpal
Singh by SHO. The accused Ravinder Singh and
Richhpal Singh were not found involved in any
other case.
8.Therefore, from the above, it is clear that
accused Ravinder Singh and Richhpal Singh are
not involved in any other case.
9.Regarding point no.5, regarding the fact
that how many victims/complainants are there in
the FIR, it is submitted that SI Rameshwar Dayal
as well as retired ASI Mohan Lal Investigating
Officers have stated that complainant Harpreet
Kaur is the only victim in the present case and she
is the complainant of this case. Except her, there is
no other victim or complainant in the FIR."
Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the marriage of
petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 01.01.2008 and
two daughters and a son have been born from the wedlock. One of the
daughters, namely Vipandeep Kaur had died in a motor vehicular accident
on 05.10.2018. At the earlier instance, four persons were arraigned as
accused, but subsequently, challan has been presented only against the petitioners.
The matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled between the parties in terms of
compromise (Annexure P-3). The marriage between petitioner No.1 and
3 of 5
respondent No.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13
of Hindu Marriage Act in terms of the judgment and decree dated
04.09.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Sirsa. The said petition was
instituted by respondent No.2. The petitioner No.1 had preferred an appeal
against the aforesaid judgment and decree of divorce and he will withdraw
the same. The claim of respondent No.2 for permanent alimony and articles
of istridhan has been settled and custody of both the children shall remain
with petitioner no.1.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has not disputed the
aforesaid factual aspect(s) and further stated that he has no objection if the
FIR is quashed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit
case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice because the parties have arrived
at a settlement, out of the Court, by way of compromise. The compromise is
without any pressure and a genuine one. In such a situation, continuation of
the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law.
The controversy in the instant case does not indicate that the
same involves heinous or serious offences and furthermore, the matrimonial
dispute has been sought to be amicably settled. Consequently, a deserving
case is made out where the court should exercise the power to secure the
ends of justice.
For the aforesaid view, this Court finds support from
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3)
RCR (Criminal) 1052, upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs.
4 of 5
State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the
ends of justice, FIR No.0290 dated 08.05.2016 under Sections 323, 34, 341,
342, 354 (B), 452, 498-A, 506 IPC (Section 307 IPC added later on)
registered at Police Station Rattia, District Fatehabad on the basis of
compromise is ordered to be quashed, however, qua the petitioners only.
Resultantly, with the above-said observations made, the instant
petition stands allowed.
29.11.2022 (VIVEK PURI)
smriti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
