Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukesh Kathuria And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 29 April, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058172
CRM-M-4630-2024 :1: 2024:PHHC:058172
299 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4630-2024
Date of decision: 29.04.2024
MUKESH KATHURIA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition is for quashing of FIR No.0558 dated
08.09.2023 registered under Sections 306/34 IPC at Police Station
Mujesar District Faridabad on the basis of compromise dated 18.12.2023
(Annexure P-2) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The above stated FIR was registered on the statement of the
complainant/respondent No.2-Babita Sharma against the petitioners.
3. On notice of motion, respondent No.2 appeared in the Court
through her counsel and pleaded that she has no objection if the FIR in
this case is quashed on the basis of the aforesaid compromise which has
been effected between the parties.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate was directed to record the statements of the all
the concerned parties with regard to genuineness and validity or
otherwise of the aforesaid compromise.
5. In compliance thereof, report from the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Faridabad
1 of 5along with statements of the parties has
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058172
CRM-M-4630-2024 :2: 2024:PHHC:058172
been received, in which, it is mentioned that the compromise is genuine
and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. As per the allegations recorded in the FIR, deceased Kundan
Sharma Husband of complainant Babita Sharma was working as a 'Die
setter' in M/s Venus Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad which
was owned and managed by the petitioners. He was placed under
suspension by levelling false allegations and management initiated
domestic enquiry against him. On account of the aforesaid illegal act and
conduct of the management, deceased went into depression and took
drastic step and consumed poison on 08.09.2023, as a result of which he
died on the same day. Consequently the FIR was registered in this case
against all the accused.
8. Admittedly complainant is wife of deceased Kundan Sharma
and she got recorded her statement in the Court concerned that the matter
has been settled between the parties and she is having no objection if the
impugned FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise.
9. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of
the settlement effected between the parties, the present petition deserves
to be accepted. It has also come on record that the aforesaid compromise
is genuine and the parties effected the same without any undue influence
or coercion.
10. In case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 687, the Hon'ble Apex
Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 306 IPC
againstthe accused who was having quarrel with the deceased and told
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058172
CRM-M-4630-2024 :3: 2024:PHHC:058172
the deceased to go and die and the deceased committed suicide on the
third day of quarrel.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan and Ors. 2010(4) RCR(Criminal) 66, while quashing a
charge framed against the accused under Section 306 IPC observed that
conviction merely on basis of harassment of deceased is unsustainable in
law, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide and the said act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
12. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shabbir Hussain Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2022 (1) RCR Criminal 610
held that in order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC,
there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence,
the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must
have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain
act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere harassment without any
positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of
occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence
under Section 306 IPC.
13. In view of the aforesaid settled law, it is clear that in order to
prosecute a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear
mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act
which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act
must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide. In the instant case, prima facie, nothing is available
on record to show that there was intention on the part of the petitioners
and they actively committed certain acts proximate to the time of
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058172
CRM-M-4630-2024 :4: 2024:PHHC:058172
occurrence and thus compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Further,
it appears that the parties have settled their dispute in an amicable
manner.
14. The Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed FIR registered
under Section 306 IPC on the basis of compromise in
CRM-M-29142-2021 "Arsh Vikram Singh vs. State of Punjab and
Ors." decided on 04.05.2022 after discussing the settled law relating to
ambit of Section 306 IPC.
15. In light of the above, this Court is of the view that the
continuation of the criminal proceedings under Section 306 IPC against
the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. As per
the full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v.
State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held
that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to allow the
compounding of non compoundable offence and quash the prosecution
where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to
prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and another 2012 (4) RCR Criminal 543 had also observed that in
order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of
Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal
proceedings in which a compromise has been effected.
16. For the reasons aforestated and having regard to the law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court aforecited judgments, this petition is
allowed and FIR No.0558 dated 08.09.2023 registered under Sections
306/34 IPC at Police Station Mujesar District Faridabad on the basis of
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058172
CRM-M-4630-2024 :5: 2024:PHHC:058172
compromise dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent
proceedings thereof are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
(KARAMJIT SINGH)
JUDGE
29.04.2024
Priyanka Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
5 of 5
