Charu Garg & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Petitioner no.1 Ms. Charu Garg in person and for petitioners no.2 & 3. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Fariad Singh Virk, Advocate for respondent no.2. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.161 dated 14.04.2009 under Sections 380 and 34 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Camp Thana Palwal, District Faridabad as well as all consequential proceeding arising thereof. It is averred that marriage of petitioner no.1 Charu Garg, who is advocate by profession, was solemnized with respondent no.2-Dr. Munish Garg(complainant) on 21.11.2007 with great pomp and show after spending sufficient amount of money and giving substantial dowry. It is stated that due to their matrimonial dispute petitioner-Charu Garg filed FIR No.577 Crl. Misc.No.M 20892 of 2010 # 2# dated 21.4.2009 under Sections 498-A, 406, 504, 323 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Kavi Nagar, Gaziabad against respondent no.2 and his family members. Respondent no.2-husband on account of an incident lodged the present FIR No.161 dated 14.4.2009 under Sections 380 and 34 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Camp Thana Palwal, District Faridabad against his wife petitioner no.1 Charu Garg and her brother Rohit Garg and her father Om Parkash Garg (petitioners no.2 & 3) respectively. It is next averred that due to the intervention of the respectables on 31.8.2010 a compromise was effected between the parties and thereafter on the basis of the compromise the aforesaid F IR lodged by the petitioner Charu Garg against her husband (respondent no.2 and his family members) was quashed on 1.10.2010 by the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad. The instant petition was filed before the compromise was effected with the allegations levelled by respondent no.2 against the petitioner-wife and her family members of having gone on the intervening night of 03/04.04.2009 to the house and commit theft of various articles by breaking open the lock of the house were false and baseless. However, subsequently prayer for quashing of the same is prayed in view of the compromise dated 31.8.2010. Upon notice respondent no.2-complainant appeared and filed reply by way of affidavit dated 8.11.2010, which has been taken on record. Respondent no.2 has been identified by his counsel and the petitioner no.1. In his reply he has stated that compromise has been affected between him and the petitioners. Now he is happily residing with petitioner no.1 and is enjoying their married life. He has no objection if the present FIR be Crl. Misc.No.M 20892 of 2010 # 3# quashed against all the petitioners. Statement of respondent no.2-complainant has been separately recorded. Learned State Counsel is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the aforesaid compromise wherein the parties have deposed on the basis of the compromise Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675 B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has also held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:- “The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T. 2008(9) S.C. 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while Crl. Misc.No.M 20892 of 2010 # 4# relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise. Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:- “We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that the husband and wife have resolved their matrimonial dispute and have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice. Crl. Misc.No.M 20892 of 2010 # 5# Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.161 dated 14.04.2009 under Sections 380 and 34 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Camp Thana Palwal, District Faridabad as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against the petitioners. 08th November, 2010 Vinay ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE