Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ratika Verma And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 April, 2024
Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058161
CRM-M-12676-2024 Neutral Citation : 2024:PHHC:058161
128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12676-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 29.04.2024
Ratika Verma and others
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present: Ms. Poonam Saroya, Advocate,
for Mr. Ashwani K. Antil, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Kamal K. Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of FIR No.0774 dated 24.11.2015 (P-1), under
Sections 506, 323 & 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, registered at Police Station, Sector 5, Gurugram, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise
dated 06.01.2024 (P-2), entered into between the parties i.e. petitioners as
well as respondent Nos.2 & 3.
2. Allegations are that petitioners gave beatings to the informant
and other victims.
3. A Co-ordinate Bench, while issuing notice of motion on
12.03.2024, passed the following order:-
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058161
CRM-M-12676-2024 Neutral Citation : 2024:PHHC:058161
"The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR
No.0774 dated 24.11.2015 under Sections 323, 325, 34 & 506 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Sector 5,
Gurugram and all other consequential proceedings arising there-
from on the ground that the parties have since compromised the
matter vide compromise deed dated 06.01.2024 (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the
parties have since compromised the matter and the compromise
deed dated 06.01.2024 has been appended with the present petition
as Annexure P-2. Learned counsel further contends that petitioner
No.1 and respondent No.2 have filed a petition under Section 13-B
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein first motion statements
have been recorded and now the case is pending for recording of
second motion statements.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG,
Haryana waives service on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr.
Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.2
and 3. Copy of the petition has already been supplied to both the
counsel.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 & 3 has
stated that the parties have voluntarily entered into a compromise
and that the compromise is annexed as Annexure P-2 with the
petition. He further states that respondent No.2 & 3 has no
objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed.
The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab& Anr. [2012 (10) SCC 303] has held as under :
"57. 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
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058161
CRM-M-12676-2024 Neutral Citation : 2024:PHHC:058161
such offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavor stand on
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, High Court
may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of
the compromise between the offender and victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put 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 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 affirmative,
the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash
the criminal proceeding."
In view of the above cited judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court,
this Court considers that 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 wrongdoer.
List on 29.04.2024
Meanwhile, the parties are directed to appear before the
concerned CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court on 09.04.2024 or on
any other date convenient to the Court, for recording of their
statements. The CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court is directed to
record the statements of the parties to its satisfaction qua the
genuineness of the compromise and that the same is not the result
of any undue influence, coercion or pressure of kind. A report,
along-with the statements of the parties, on the following points be
sent to this Court before the next date of hearing :
1) Whether the settlement/compromise dated 06.01.2024
(Annexure P-2) has been freely entered into between the
parties without any undue influence, coercion or pressure
of any kind.
2) Whether any other criminal cases are pending against
the parties.
3) Whether any proclamation proceedings are pending
against either of the parties."
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058161
CRM-M-12676-2024 Neutral Citation : 2024:PHHC:058161
4. In terms of aforesaid order, statements of both the parties were
recorded and a report dated 23.04.2024 has been submitted in this regard by
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram. The operative part of the
same reads as under:-
"It has been verified that both the complainant/victims and the
accused persons have entered into compromise freely without any undue
influence, coercion or pressure."
5. A perusal of the aforesaid report clearly reveals that the
matter has been compromised by both the parties with their free consent,
voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. Even before
this Court also, there is no objection by either of the parties against the
compromise.
6. Learned State Counsel, on instructions from the police
officer present in the Court, also submitted that they have no objection in
case the aforesaid FIR as well as consequential proceedings are quashed
on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2012) 10 SCC 303, has held 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 FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the 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.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058161
CRM-M-12676-2024 Neutral Citation : 2024:PHHC:058161
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. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like the 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
predominatingly 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 the 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 the 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."
8. In view of above, this Court is fully convinced that the offence
is entirely personal in nature and does not affect public peace or tranquility.
Thus, quashing of the FIR in question along with consequential proceedings,
on the basis of compromise would bring peace and harmony to secure the
ends of justice.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058161
CRM-M-12676-2024 Neutral Citation : 2024:PHHC:058161
9. Consequently, present petition is allowed; aforesaid FIR along
with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed qua the
petitioners.
10. No costs.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
29.04.2024 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU)
atulsethi JUDGE
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
6 of 6
