Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anu Yadav And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 23 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008896
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:008896
CRM-M-27728-2020 -1-
302-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-27728-2020
Date of decision: 23rd January, 2024
Anu Yadav and another
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ram Kumar Singla, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Hitesh Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 213 dated 01.05.2018
registered under Sections 293, 294, 323, 341 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Section 506 added and Section 293 be read as Section 283 vide order dated
25.09.2020) at Police Station Sector 10, District Gurugram (Annexure P-1)
and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure P-2).
2. The aforementioned FIR had been lodged by respondent
No.2/complainant and investigation was commenced thereon.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner(s) that a
compromise has been arrived at between the parties and they have resolved
their inter se dispute, which was reduced into writing as compromise dated
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008896
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:008896
14.08.2020 annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-2.
4. On the basis of said compromise, the petitioners have prayed
for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and all the subsequent proceedings on the
ground that continuation of such proceedings would be a futile exercise.
5. This Court vide order dated 14.09.2020 had directed the parties
to appear before the CJM/trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their
statements with regard to the genuineness of the compromise stated to have
been arrived at between them. The CJM/trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was
also directed to send his/her report along with the said statements.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, The Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Gurugram has sent report vide endorsement No. 227 dated 31.05.2022
to this Court along with photocopies of the statements of respondent No.2-
Bansidhar and joint statement of the petitioners recorded on 26.05.2022.
7. On the basis of these statements, it is submitted by learned
Magistrate that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, out
of free Will and without any pressure or coercion. It is also mentioned in the
report that apart from the petitioner(s), there is no other accused in the FIR
and that the accused have not been declared proclaimed persons in this case.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and besides
perusing the report by learned Judicial Magistrate, have also perused the
record.
9. It is well settled that the High Court has power to allow
compounding of a non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where it feels that the same is required to
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008896
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:008896
prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. Such power is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. In this
regard, reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal)
1052. It is equally settled position of law that the power of High Court in
quashing criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation. Such power can
certainly be exercised in cases relating to 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. The High Court is required to consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings
or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of
process of law and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate to
put an end to the criminal case and if the answer to such question is in
affirmative, then the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceedings. Reference in this context can be made to Hon'ble
Apex Court judgments cited as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another,
2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and Narinder Singh and others vs. State of
Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466.
10. In view of the proposition as settled in the aforementioned
cases, this Court finds that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse
process of the Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case which
squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008896
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:008896
and that allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing of
the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object
of legislature enacted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition
is allowed and the FIR No. 213 dated 01.05.2018 registered under Sections
293, 294, 323, 341 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 506 added and
Section 293 be read as Section 283 vide order dated 25.09.2020) at Police
Station Sector 10, District Gurugram (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners
on the basis of compromise dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure P-2).
11. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms
and conditions of the compromise and statements as recorded before learned
Judicial Magistrate.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
23rd January, 2024
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008896
4 of 4
