Punjab-Haryana High Court
Richu @ Richu Rani And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 19 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039556
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:039556
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
119-2 CRM-M No.51327 of 2022
Date of decision: 19.03.2024
RICHU @ RICHU RANI AND OTHERS .... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present : Ms. Kashish, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, A.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Pawan Attri, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.107 dated 03.05.2021 under
Sections 308, 323, 34 and 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Pehowa,
District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 20.10.2022 (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 petitioners 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 20.10.2022
annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-2.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039556
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 15.01.2024 had directed the parties to
appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements
with regard to the genuineness of the compromise stated to have been arrived
at between them. The Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was also directed to send his/her
report along with the said statements.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, The District and Sessions Judge,
Kurukshetra has sent report vide endorsement No.205 dated 17.02.2024 to this
Court along with photocopies of the statements of respondent
No.2/complainant-Happy Kumar @ Happy, eye-witness-Sachin, joint
statement of the petitioners/accused and statement of Investigating Officer
ASI-Manoj Kumar recorded on 16.02.2024.
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 petitioners, 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 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039556
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 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.107 dated 03.05.2021 under Sections 308, 323, 34 and
506 of IPC registered at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039556
(Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are
ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated
20.10.2022 (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)
19.03.2024 JUDGE
Jyoti-IV
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
