Rajneesh and Another vs State of Haryana and Another

Surinder Gupta, J.—The petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ''Cr.P.C.'') seeking quashing of FIR No. 461 dated 10.07.2010 (Annexure P-1), registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'') at Police Station City Jind, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2).

As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioners had prepared false receipt by copying the signatures of complainant and thereby made a complainant against her to mentally harass her.

Learned State counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1-State. Respondent No. 2 has also put in appearance through his counsel.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

The parties were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded. The trial court has sent its report dated 24.01.2014 stating therein that the compromise has been effected in between the complainant and the accused which appears to be voluntary in nature and without any threat, pressure or coercion.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-complainant has submitted that in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2), the private respondent (complainant) has no objection if the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed. Learned State counsel has also not disputed compromise (Annexure P-2).

The only obstacle in the way of accepting the compromise for quashing the impugned FIR is that the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC are not compoundable. In case Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , Full Bench of this Court has held that the FIR can be quashed on the basis of the compromise by exercising inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. even if the offence is not compoundable.

In the instant case, the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectable and now the parties wish to live in peace and harmony.

Keeping all the above facts in view, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned FIR should be quashed. Keeping the case pending will not serve the ends of justice. The quashing of the FIR will provide the parties opportunity to live in an amicable, peaceful and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of the parties to this petition but also for their families and ultimately the society at large. The offence in this case is not so heinous or serious that it cannot be settled by the parties through compromise.

In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.