Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shakuntla & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 January, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-15228 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-15228 of 2012
Date of decision :-24.1.2013
Shakuntla & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors.
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Sameer Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
for respondent No.1.
Mr.Raghuvir Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, on the night intervening 18/19.4.2012, Monika (respondent No.3), daughter of complainant Gurmeet Kaur (respondent No.2) wife of constable Ramji Lal (for brevity "the complainant") was missing from her house. Thereafter, the complainant informed and called her husband from the Police Post. They found their daughter Monika in the company of Lalit (petitioner No.3) son of Suresh Chauhan. On seeing them, he ran away. According to the complainant that Lalit had allured and kidnapped their daughter Monika, with the connivance of his parents, to marry her. Lalit was stated to have committed sexual intercourse with her in a room, whereas his parents were present in the adjoining room of their house. In CRM No. M-15228 of 2012 2 the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against petitioners-accused Shakuntla and others, by way of FIR No.408 dated 29.4.2012 (Annexure P-1), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 363, 366, 376 (not made out), 201, 506 and 120-B read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station City Hisar in the manner depicted here-in- above.
2. During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by virtue of compromise deed dated 30.4.2012 (Annexure P-2) duly signed by the petitioners, Monika, complainant and her husband. The factum of compromise is also reiterated in the affidavits of petitioners (Annexures P3 to P5) & affidavit of complainant (Annexure P6).
3. Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-accused have preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that initiation of criminal case was an outcome of misunderstanding and unnecessary instigation of some relatives and neighbourers. Now the parties have mutually settled their dispute. The complainant has discovered that the petitioners were not at fault. All the disputes and differences were got removed from each others' mind. They have no grudge against each other. They belong to the same caste. It was claimed that since Monika (respondent No.3) had love affairs and performed her marriage with Lalit (petitioner No.3), so, the complainant-respondent CRM No. M-15228 of 2012 3 No.2 has agreed to accept the marriage of her daughter and social customary engagement has also been performed between them. The parties have already informed the SSP in this regard through representation (Annexure P8). On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner described here-in-above.
4. The respondents-complainant and Monika have acknowledged the marriage and filed the reply admitting the contents of the main petition. Not only that, Monika has made the following statement today in the Court:-
"I am major. I voluntarily solemnized my marriage with Lalit son of Suresh Chauhan (petitioner No.3) without any kind of coercion or pressure. The petitioners-accused have neither kidnapped me nor my husband committed rape on me. I am happily residing with my husband Lalit in my matrimonial home. Complainant- respondent No.2 Gurmeet Kaur is my mother. She has lodged a false criminal case against my husband and his parents."
5. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of compromise deed (Annexure P2) and the indicated affidavits of the parties.
6. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes by way of amicable settlement between the parties is no more res integra and is now well- settled.
7. An identical question (recently) came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and CRM No. M-15228 of 2012 4 another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the indicated points, it was ruled (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 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, 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 CRM No. M-15228 of 2012 5 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."
8. 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?
9. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel, 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, the learned counsel are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this respect.
10. As is evident from the record that, the parties now claimed that the initiation of criminal case was an outcome of misunderstanding and unnecessary instigation of some relatives and neighbourers. Now the parties have mutually settled their dispute. The complainant has discovered that the petitioners were not at fault. All the disputes and differences were got removed from each others' mind. They have no grudge against each other. They belong to the same caste. It was claimed that since Monika (respondent No.3) had love affairs and performed her CRM No. M-15228 of 2012 6 marriage with Lalit (petitioner No.3), so, the complainant-respondent No.2 has agreed to accept the marriage of her daughter and social customary engagement has also been performed between them. The parties have already informed the SSP in this regard through representation (Annexure P8). The complainant has no objection if the criminal case registered against them, vide impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The parties have redressed their grievances and want to live peacefully in future. The factum and genuineness of the compromise between them is also reiterated by the complainant-respondent No.2 in her affidavit (Annexure P6). The couple has already solemnized their marriage. Monika (respondent No.3) is happily residing with her husband Lalit (petitioner No.3) in her matrimonial home. To me, if the parties are not allowed to compromise the matter, then, it would adversely affect their matrimonial relationship.
11. Therefore, 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 my mind, 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.
CRM No. M-15228 of 2012 7
12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.408 dated 29.4.2012 (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto, are hereby quashed. The petitioners-accused are accordingly discharged from the pointed criminal case.
24.1.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge