Sukhvinder vinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Ha of Haryana & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- NIDHI GUPTA
Outcome
Quashed
he FIR is quashed on the basis of compro
Provisions considered
Judgment
AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Ha G, Haryana. NIDHI GU I GUPTA J. (Oral) The petitioners who are husba husband and father-in-law of the complain an lainant/respondent No. 2 herein have fil ave filed the present petition under Section 482 n 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No.4 No.44 dated 25.5.2017 (Annexure P-1) under under Sections 323, 406 and 498-A IPC A IPC, registered at Police Station Jhansa, Dis a, District Kurukshetra and all the cons e consequential proceedings arising therefrom, o rom, on the basis of compromise date e dated 05.7.2024 (Annexure P-2) effected bet ed between the parties. Pursuant to the order dated 30. ed 30.7.2024 passed by this Court, the parties arties appeared before the learned arned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra kshetra, to get their statements record recorded.
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, strate, Kurukshetra, has submitted her re her report along with statements of the parties arties vide letter dated 05.12.2024 dul uly forwarded by the learned District and ct and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. A perusal of the above said said report would show that the petitioners oners and respondent No.2 have appea appeared and suffered statements VIJAY ASIJA 2024.12.19 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36173-2024 2 with respec respect to the compromise, which ha ch have been found to be valid, genuine, vo ne, voluntary and without any coercion o cion or undue influence. Learned counsel for the petition petitioners submits that the present FIR emanat manates from the matrimonial dispute be ute between the parties. He further submits that that as per report, all the accused are are party to the compromise and they have ne ave never been declared as proclaimed o imed offenders.
Operative part
Reply dated 14.12.2024 by way y way of affidavit of Ashok Kumar, Deputy Sup ty Superintendent of Police, HQ, Kuruk Kurukshetra has been filed in the Court today today. The same is taken on record. ord. Copy thereof supplied to the counsel opp el opposite. Learned State counsel as well s well as learned counsel for the complain an lainant/respondent No.2 have stated tha ed that they have ‘no objection’ in case the FIR he FIR is quashed on the basis of compro ompromise qua the petitioners. This Court has heard the learne learned counsel for the parties and has perused erused the file. After perusing the report subm t submitted by the learned Chief Judicial Ma ial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, this Court f ourt finds that the matter has been amicably se bly settled between the petitioners and rs and respondent No.2. Since the matter has b r has been settled and the parties have have decided to live in peace, this Court feels feels that in order to secure the en the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings edings deserve to be quashed.
As per the Full Bench judgment gment of this Court in “Kulwinder Singh and and others Vs State of Punjab”, 2007 007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that d that High Court has power under Sec er Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compoundin ounding of non-compoundable offence ffence and quash the proceedings where the H the High Court is of the opinion that th that the same is required to prevent the abuse o use of the process of law or otherwise rwise to secure the ends of justice. This power ower of quashing is not confined to matr to matrimonial disputes alone. VIJAY ASIJA 2024.12.19 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36173-2024 3 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case e case of “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and and another”, 2012 (4) RCR (Crim riminal) 543, had also observed that in order n order to secure the ends of justice or to e or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, in urt, inherent power can be used by t by this Court to quash criminal proceedings edings in which a compromise has been been effected.
The relevant portion of para 57 o ra 57 of the said judgment is reproduced h uced here-in-below:-
57. The position that emerges f be summarised thus: the power o a criminal proceeding or FIR o inherent jurisdiction is distinct given to a criminal court for com Section 320 of the Code. Inhere with no statutory limitation bu accord with the guideline engra secure the ends of justice or process of any Court.
In view of what has been d ges from the above discussion can er of the High Court in quashing IR or complaint in exercise of its inct and different from the power r compounding the offences under herent power is of wide plenitude n but it has to be exercised in ngrafted in such power viz; (i) to e or (ii) to prevent abuse of the een discussed here-in-above, this petition is a on is allowed and FIR No.44 dated 25.5
25.5.2017 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 32 ns 323, 406 and 498-A IPC, registere gistered at Police Station Jhansa, District Kur ct Kurukshetra, along with all other cons r consequential proceedings arising therefrom o rom on the basis of compromise, are or are ordered to be quashed qua the oners. petitioners. Pending application(s), if any, sh any, shall stands disposed of. December 1 Vijay Asija mber 16, 2024 Asija ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No VIJAY ASIJA 2024.12.19 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: he FIR is quashed on the basis of compro
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.