Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nitika Goel Alias Nitika Beriwala And ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 November, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144358
CRM-M No.38669 of 2024 -1-
282
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.38669 of 2024
Date of Decision: 06.11.2024
Nikita Beriwal @ Nikita Goel and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate
for respondents No.2 & 3.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR
No.496, dated 11.11.2019, under Sections 323, 380, 452, 454, 148, 149 of
IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sector 5, District Panchkula along
with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise deed dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure P-2).
2. FIR in question was got registered by the complainant-
respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However,
with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at
settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent
from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144358
compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court
by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile
exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the complaint in
question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be
quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 12.08.2024 directed the parties
to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their
statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
4. In pursuance to the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Panchkula has sent the report dated 25.09.2024 to this Court. With the
report, she has also annexed the original joint statement of
complainant/respondent No.2 & respondent No.3, namely, Amit Goel and
Rita Goel and original joint statement of the petitioners, namely, Nikita
Beriwal @ Nikita Goel, Purushottam Beriwala, Bina Beriwala, Ashok
Kumar Gupta and Ajay Kumar Gupta recorded on 13.08.2024. She has
also annexed the report dated 13.09.2024 of Investigating Officer, namely
Brijesh Kumar. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula has concluded in the report that the
compromise effected between the parties appears to have been entered
into voluntarily, without any coercion ant out of their free will. It has
been further mentioned that the present FIR was registered against five
accused i.e. the petitioners. It has further been mentioned that as per the
report of the police, no accused has been declared proclaimed
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144358
offender in any case and no other criminal case is pending against the
accused. It has further been mentioned that FIR No.2/2019 under
Sections 498A/406 of IPC, at Police Station East Vidhannaga, Kolkatta,
West Bengal has been registered against accused Nikita Beriwala.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
record and the report sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Panchkula.
6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of BNSS
would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Section 359 BNSS is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes
the procedure for compounding of the offences under the BNS.
7. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed
and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the
continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh
and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466;
B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4
Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3)
RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case
and settled the law.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144358
8. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State
of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further
dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for
quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads 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 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 such
offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144358
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 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 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."
9. Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
plethora of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the
parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the
proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by
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 the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely
falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and
hence, FIR No.496, dated 11.11.2019, under Sections 323, 380, 452, 454,
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144358
148, 149 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sector 5, District
Panchkula along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are
hereby quashed qua the petitioners, namely, Nikita Beriwal @ Nikita
Goel, Purushottam Beriwala, Bina Beriwala, Ashok Kumar Gupta and
Ajay Kumar Gupta on the basis of compromise deed dated 26.06.2024
(Annexure P-2). Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by
the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded
before the Court below.
11. Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
06.11.2024 JUDGE
rittu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
