Ankit Gupta and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 180 dated 09.05.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC'' for short) registered at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad (Annexure P1) and all consequential proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise dated 02.08.2009(Annexure P2).

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that now, with the intervention of relatives and friends, the parties have arrived at a compromise. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent, Before the learned Additional District Judge, Respondent No. 2 had made a statement that she would co-operate in getting the FIR in question quashed in view of the compromise between the parties.

Respondent No. 2-Ruchika Goyal is present in person along with her counsel and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. Respondent No. 2 has also admitted the correctness of her statement recorded before the Additional District Judge Rohini on 22.8.2009 (Annexure P3). She has further stated that a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent has been passed by the Court at Delhi on 13.8.2010. She has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:

"23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them where under the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the Appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised? 24. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi''s case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise."

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 180 dated 9.5.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad (Anneuxre P1) as well as the subsequent proceedings arising there from, are quashed.