Quashing petition seeking cancellation of an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 and 377 IPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The Magistrate's report confirmed the compromise was valid and voluntary; the Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings qua the petitioners.
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-M-22535-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
223 CRM-M-22535-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.12.2024
Balkrishan Bhola and others
.… Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Mr. P.S.Rai, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, A.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. M.S.Kanda, Advocate for respondent No.2.
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners have filed the instant petition for quashing of FIR No. 88 dated 26.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 and 377 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Women Central, District Faridabad and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 13.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties.
Pursuant to the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad has submitted her report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 27.05.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad.
A perusal of the above said report would show that the
DIVYANSHI 2024.12.20 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-22535-2024 (O&M) -2-
petitioners and respondent No. 2 have appeared and suffered statements with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be valid, genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. There is no other criminal case pending against the petitioners. The petitioners have never been declared as proclaimed offenders. The petitioners and respondent No.2 are the only party to the compromise.
Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 have stated that they have ‘no objection’ in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioners.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.
After perusing the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve 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, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the proceedings where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
DIVYANSHI 2024.12.20 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-22535-2024 (O&M) -3-
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another”, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-
below:-
“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 view of what has been discussed here-in-above, this
petition is allowed; and FIR No. 88 dated 26.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 and 377 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Women Central, District Faridabad and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 13.09.2022 (Annexure P-2), are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
18.12.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
DIVYANSHI 2024.12.20 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 88 dated 26.07.2021 and consequential proceedings should be quashed on the basis of a genuine compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of PunjabRelied on¶23
2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶26
2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Balkrishan Bhola
State of Haryana
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
