Single judge allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminial proceedings for matrimonial offences citing a compromise between the petitioner and the complainant.
FIR No. 61 dated 21.02.2012 and all consequential proceedings 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.
CRM No.M-31156 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-31156 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 10.12.2012
Sameer Khan and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ajay Gulati, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sahil Kaushal, Advocate, for the complainant-respondent No.2.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.61 dated 21.02.2012, under Sections 498-A, 406, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), registered at P.S. Pinjore, Distt. Panchkula, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties.
Heard.
The complainant, Sabeena, duly identified by her learned
-2-
CRM No.M-31156 of 2012
counsel, in present in the Court. She admits the factum of compromise having been reached between the parties. Affidavit of the complainantwife has also been filed in the Court, which is taken on record. It has been asserted in the affidavit that she would have no objection in case the present petition is allowed.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another' (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010), decided on 24.09.2012, has observed in para 57 as under:-
“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
CRM No.M-31156 of 2012
-3-
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 predominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, 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 personal 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
CRM No.M-31156 of 2012
-4-
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.”
In view of the above and taking into consideration the fact that as the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose would be achieved in continuing the proceedings, this petition is allowed and FIR No.61 dated 21.02.2012, under Sections 498-A, 406, 307, 34 of IPC, registered at P.S. Pinjore, Distt. Panchkula, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua
the present petitioners.
10.12.2012 atulsethi
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash an FIR for matrimonial offences based on a compromise between parties.
Whether continuing criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law given the settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶22
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sameer Khan and others
State of Haryana
Sabeena
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
