Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarun Miglani vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 September, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Criminal Misc. No. M-17231 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-17231 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.9.2012
Tarun Miglani
.....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. R.S.Randhawa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):
The petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR No.362 dated 5.12.2011, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Saran, District Faridabad, including the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply dated 16.8.2012 by way of affidavit of Vijay Partap Singh, Assistant Criminal Misc. No. M-17231 of 2012 2 Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Faridabad, was filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of an out of Court settlement arrived at between the parties, a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed before the learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. Joint Statement of the parties were recorded on 6.9.2012 and based on that, marriage between the parties has been dissolved by a decree for dissolution of marriage, by way of mutual consent, vide judgment dated 6.9.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a certified copy of the joint statement of the petitioner and respondent No.2 and also copy of judgment as well as decree sheet. The relevant part of the judgment dated 6.9.2012 passed the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, reads as under:-
"Joint statement of the parties in support of petition was recorded on 3.3.2012, at the time of filing of joint petition. Joint statement of the parties on second motion has also been recorded on 6.9.2012. They have ruled out any possibility of their re-union. The statutory period of six months has already elapsed.
Accordingly, the petition for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent succeeds under Sections 13-B (2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and a decree for dissolution of their marriage by way of Criminal Misc. No. M-17231 of 2012 3 mutual consent is passed."
Announced in open court. (Sudesh Kumar Sharma) Dt. 6.9.2012 District Judge, Family Court.
Faridabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have decided to bury the hatchet. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the decree of divorce by way of mutual consent, the impugned FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice. I say so because the parties have arrived at an out of Court settlement by way of compromise (Annexure P-2). The compromise is without any pressure and a genuine one. In such a situation, continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law.
In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-
"We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the Criminal Misc. No. M-17231 of 2012 4 prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."
The view taken by this Court also finds support from the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shiji @ Pappu and others versus Radhika and another, 2012 (1) RCR (criminal) 9 and from the larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another reported as 2007 (3) RCR (criminal) 1052. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 of the judgment in Shiji's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:
"It is manifest that simply because an
offence is not compoundable under Section 320
IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to
refuse exercise of its power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by Criminal Misc. No. M-17231 of 2012 5 the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-
compoundable. The inherent powers of the
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are
not for that purpose controlled by Section
320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must
hasten to add that the plenitude of the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself,
makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise
the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an Criminal Misc. No. M-17231 of 2012 6 abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked."
Reverting to the facts of the present case, this Court has satisfied itself that the compromise arrived at between the parties is a genuine one. In view of the genuine compromise arrived at between the parties and also in view of the decree dated 6.9.20012 for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have no hesitation to conclude that the continuation of the prosecution any further would be nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law. It would result in wastage of valuable time of the Court because no chance of conviction is left. Criminal Misc. No. M-17231 of 2012 7
In the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 362 dated 5.12.2011, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Saran, District Faridabad, including the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, only qua the petitioner, namely Tarun Miglani, are ordered to be quashed Resultantly, instant petition stands allowed.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 13.9.2012 AK Sharma