This petition allowed the quashing of an FIR under Sections 498A/406/120B/506 IPC following a proven compromise between the petitioner and respondent, citing inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice.
FIR No. 35 dated 20.2.2007 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-31294 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:December 01, 2010
Rajeev Kumar and another
...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.S.R.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr.Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for respondent No.2 **
Sabina, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 35 dated 20.2.2007 under Sections 498A/406/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Sector 40 Gurgaon (Annexure P1) and all consequential proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise .
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now, with the intervention of relatives and friends, the parties have arrived at a compromise .
Respondent No.2-Smt.Suman @ Sonakshi is present in person along with her counsel and has admitted the factum of compromise
-2-
Crl. Misc. No. M-31294 of 2010 (O&M)
between the parties. Respondent No.2 has further submitted that she along with petitioner No.1 has moved a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit (Annexure P3) wherein she has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, 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 felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise 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 Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-
“23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil
dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which Crl. Misc. No. M-31294 of 2010 (O&M) -3-
is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?
24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this
Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where
technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile
exercise.”
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.35 dated 20.2.2007 under Sections 498A/406/120B/506 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 40, Gurgaon as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed .
( Sabina ) Judge
December 01, 2010
arya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings following a compromise between parties.
Whether the quashing of an FIR under Sections 498A/406/120B/506 IPC is permissible upon the intervention of relatives and a mutual consent decree.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of PunjabReferred¶17
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationExplained¶18
Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajeev Kumar
State of Haryana
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
