Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J

The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.0011 dated 23.02.2018, for offence punishable under Sections 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in

short 'IPC') registered at Women Police Station Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri, on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

Vide order dated 23.09.2020, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with regard

to genuineness of the compromise.

A report dated 12.10.2020 has been submitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Charkhi Dadri, wherein it has been reported that statements of the

petitioner and respondent No.2 have been recorded and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a

compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their

free will.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and the petitioner has not been declared as

proclaimed offender.

Counsel for the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, assisted with counsel for the respondent No.2 has not disputed the fact that the

parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.

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

After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and

respondent/victim, who have decided to bury their dispute and live in peace.

As per the Full Benchjudgment of this Court in “Kulwinder Singh and others vs State of Punjabâ€, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that

High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High

Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to 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 “Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and anotherâ€​, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held as under:-

“57. 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes

of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,

because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal

case would put 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 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 affirmative, the High Court

shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.â€​

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal

proceedings to continue.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed and FIR No.0011 dated 23.02.2018, for offence punishable under Sections

354, 506 IPC registered at Women Police Station Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be

quashed, qua the petitioner, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, concerned.