Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
Dharmender Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-2955-2022
Decided On : 18-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vikram Rana, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Kirpal Singh Thakur, AAG, Mr. Sumit S. Bairagi, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court, especially when the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Quashing of FIR - Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 34/506 of IPC
Fact of the Case:

The petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR under Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 34/506 of IPC, based on a compromise deed between the parties.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the compromise between the parties was made without any threat or pressure and that the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings should be quashed based on the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 320 Cr.P.C., along with various judgments including Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana, and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, to establish that quashing of the FIR was justified when the parties had amicably settled their dispute.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on the compromise between the parties.

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) - Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.0069, dated 13.06.2021, under Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 34/506 of IPC, at Police Station Women Faridabad along with subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise deed dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P-2).

2. FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

3. This Court vide order dated 04.02.2022 directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was also directed to send its report.

4. In pursuance of the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad has sent her report dated 02.04.2022 to this Court. With the report she has also annexed the original statement of complainant/respondent No.2-Mamta Rawat, and joint statement of petitioners namely, Dharamender Singh, Lal Singh and Asha Devi recorded on 01.04.2022 and also statement of Inspector/SHO Geeta recorded on 02.04.2022. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad has concluded in the report that the compromise between the parties appears to be without any threat or pressure from either side and is made out of their free volition. It is further mentioned that no accused was declared proclaimed offender in this case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad.

6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.

7. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.

8. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:-

'61. 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 p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document