Allowed

Bharat Bhushan and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Aug 2024CRM-M/24110/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR arising from a matrimonial dispute on the basis of a compromise deed. The Magistrate verified the compromise as genuine and voluntary; the State raised no objection. Relying on Kulwinder Singh and Gian Singh, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings qua the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 21 dated 11.02.2019 at Women Police Station, Panchkula, and all consequential proceedings quashed qua the petitioners.

Bharat Bhushan and Others Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-24110-2024 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

261 CRM-M-24110-2024

¶4

Date of Decision: 07.08.2024

¶5

Bharat Bhushan and others .… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and another .... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶9

Present: - Mr. Jimmy Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Ritesh Tomar, Advocate for Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶10

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 21 dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 323, 376, 377, 406, 498-A and 511 IPC (Sections 376 and 511 IPC deleted later on) at Women Police Station, Panchkula and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated 06.05.2024(Annexure P-2), arrived at between the parties.

¶12

Pursuant to the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, has submitted her report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 24.07.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Panchkula.

¶13

A perusal of the above said report would show that the

¶14

RISHU KATARIA 2024.08.09 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

CRM-M-24110-2024 -2-

¶16

petitioners and respondent No. 2 have appeared before the learned trial Court and suffered statements with respect to the compromise which have been found to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion and undue influence.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner , inter alia, submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is submitted that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are parents-in-law; whereas petitioner No. 3 is the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2 herein. Marriage of the petitioner No. 3 with complainant/ respondent No.2 was solemnized on 08.02.2011 and two sons were born out of the said wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord, the parties could not cohabit together and started residing separately since the year 2019. Now better sense has prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into compromise, according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question. Further, it is submitted that initially, four persons were named in the FIR; however, challan has been filed only against the present petitioners and they have never been declared as proclaimed offenders.

¶18

Status report dated 06.08.2024, filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Manpreet Singh Sudan, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, on behalf respondent No. 1-State is taken on record.

¶19

Learned State counsel has stated that he has ‘no objection’ in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioners.

¶20

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.

¶21

RISHU KATARIA 2024.08.09 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶22

CRM-M-24110-2024 -3-

¶23

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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-inbelow:-

¶26

“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

¶27

RISHU KATARIA 2024.08.09 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶28

CRM-M-24110-2024 -4-

¶29

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.”

¶30

In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 21 dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 323, 376, 377, 406, 498-A and 511 IPC (Sections 376 and 511 IPC deleted later on) at Women Police Station, Panchkula and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated 06.05.2024(Annexure P-2), arrived at between the parties, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

¶31

07.08.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶32

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶33

RISHU KATARIA 2024.08.09 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Bharat Bhushan and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Bhushan 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

Mamta Vs Tarun Khanna

Jatinder Kaur Vs Jaswant Singh and Anr.

Amarjeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Simerjeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Harish Kumar Arya Vs State of Haryana and Another

Jaswinder Kaur @ Joginder Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another