Allowed

Sanjeev Gupta and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Oct 2012CRM-M/28830/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed FIR and subsequent proceedings in matrimonial dispute involving Sections 498-A IPC after parties amicably settled and paid maintenance, citing remote possibility of conviction and interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR No.138 dated 24.09.2005 and all subsequent proceedings quashed; petitioners acquitted of charges.

Sanjeev Gupta and Others Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CRM No.M-28830 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-28830 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:16.10.2012

¶4

Sanjeev Gupta and others .....Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶8

Present: Mr.Surinder Avinash Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr.Sameer Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1-State.

¶10

Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶11

¶12

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶13

Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, in the wake of complaint of complainant-Shalini Gupta daughter of Triloki Nath Garg, respondent No.2(for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused Sanjeev Gupta and others, by virtue of FIR No.138 dated 24.09.2005(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.

¶14

After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report(challan). Consequently, the petitioners-accused

¶15

CRM No.M-28830 of 2012 2

¶16

were accordingly charge-sheeted for the commission of the indicated offences by the trial court and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.

¶17

During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, by way of agreement/compromise dated 04.09.2012(Annexure P-2) and affidavit(Annexure P-3) of the complainant.

¶18

Having compromised the matter, now the petitionersaccused have preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia , pleading that they have amicably settled their disputes with the intervention of elders of both the families and in the presence of local persons in the Gurudwara. They have decided to dissolve their marriage and to live separately. It was claimed that the complainant has agreed to receive a sum of Rs.16,50,000/-, by way of bank draft, as maintenance and expenses incurred by her father at the time of solemnization of their marriage. It was also agreed that the petitionerhusband would pay an amount of Rs.8 lacs through bank draft to the complainant at the time of recording of her statement before the High Court, at the time of quashing the FIR, whereas the balance amount of Rs.8,50,000/- will be paid to her at the time of final settlement of decree of divorce by mutual consent. They have redressed their grievances with the intervention of respectables and friends and have no grudge against each other. The complainant has no objection if the present criminal case

¶19

CRM No.M-28830 of 2012 3

¶20

registered against the petitioners-accused vide impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) is quashed. The factum of compromise has also been reiterated by the complainant in her affidavit. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P- 1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner depicted hereinabove.

¶21

In pursuance of the notice, the complainant-respondent No.2 appeared in the Court and filed the reply by way of affidavit, again reiterating the factum of compromise, para 4 of which is as under:-

¶22

“4. That the deponent has duly agreed to compromise the matter as per terms and conditions of the agreement and has got no objection in case the above mentioned FIR No.138, dated 24/9/2005, under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC be quashed. The deponent has received the sum of Rs.8,00,000 (Rupees Eight lacs only) vide draft No.664811 dated 05/09/2012 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.and draft 044861 dated 05/09/2012 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. for sum of Rs.4 lacs each (Rupees four lakh) as partial payment in pursuance of the compromise from the petitioner and has agreed to compound the above said offences under the FIR.”

¶23

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, by virtue of agreement/compromise(Annexure P-2) and the affidavits of the complainant.

¶24

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of amicable settlement between the parties is no more res integra and is now wellsettled.

¶25

CRM No.M-28830 of 2012 4

¶26

An identical question (recently) came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010, titled as Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. , decided on September 24, 2012. Having interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the indicated points, it was ruled (para 57) as under:-

¶27

“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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,

¶28

CRM No.M-28830 of 2012

¶29

¶30

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 personnel 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.”

¶31

Such, thus, being the legal position and the material on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?

¶32

Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of matrimonial disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶33

CRM No.M-28830 of 2012 6

¶34

As is evident from the record that, the parties have amicably settled their disputes with the intervention of elders of both the families and in the presence of local persons in the Gurudwara, by means of agreement/compromise(Annexure P-2) and the affidavits, with their free will and without any kind of coercion. They have decided to dissolve their marriage and to live separately. The complainant has received an amount of Rs.8 lacs through bank drafts as partial payment, in pursuance of the agreement-compromise(Annexure P-2), whereas the balance amount of Rs.8,50,000/- will be paid to her at the time of final settlement of decree of divorce by mutual consent. They have redressed their grievances with the intervention of respectables and friends and have no grudge against each other. The complainant has no objection if the criminal case registered against the petitioners-accused is quashed. Thus, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties, so, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Therefore, to me, the ratio of the law laid down and the bench-mark set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case(supra) , “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Sequelly, the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶35

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is

¶36

CRM No.M-28830 of 2012 7

¶37

accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.138 dated 24.09.2005 (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. The petitioners-accused are accordingly acquitted of the charges framed against them, in this regard.

¶38

Needless to mention that, both the parties will abide by the terms & conditions of the agreement/compromise(Annexure P-2) in letter and spirit. In case of breach of any terms & conditions of the agreement by any of the parties, the aggrieved party would be at liberty to file a fresh petition, to obtain appropriate relief in this relevant context.

¶39

October 16, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Sanjeev Gupta and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Gupta and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sant Ram Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Samual Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Meena Kumari and Others Vs Kurukshetra University and Another

Mandeep Singh @ Deepa Vs State of Punjab

Darshana @ Sarabjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Renu Bala Vs Kkr.University & Ors.