Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharampal Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 23 November, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc.No.M-28826 of 2012 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Misc.No.M-28826 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 23.11.2012
Dharampal Yadav and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocate,
for the petitioners
Mr.Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana
Mr.H.P.S.Ishar, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 are in person.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 120 dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Sector 10-A, Gurgaon District Gurgaon under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that with the intervention of the relatives and friends, parties have arrived Crl.Misc.No.M-28826 of 2012 (O&M) 2 at a compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the complaint filed by petitioner No.4 against the threats issued by respondent No.2, has since been discontinued as the same was not pressed by petitioner No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further assured, on instructions from petitioner No.1, that the alleged objectionable video of respondent No.2 in the possession of petitioner No.4 will not be posted on any website or misused. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that at present, no complaint was pending in U.K. at the instance of the petitioners against respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over two demand drafts ( photocopies of the same have been placed on record) in the sum of ` 6,00,000/- to respondent No.3 Sher Singh Yadav, in terms of the compromise.
Statement of respondent No.2 was recorded by the trial Court in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 1.10.2012. The said statement has been sent by the trial Court to this Court.
A perusal of the statement made by respondent No.2 before the trial Court reveals that she has stated that she has no objection in case the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed as the parties had amicably settled their disputes.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to Crl.Misc.No.M-28826 of 2012 (O&M) 3 prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:- "23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?
24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by Crl.Misc.No.M-28826 of 2012 (O&M) 4 the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise."
In case of Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 9, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.13 has held as under:-
13. 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 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-28826 of 2012 (O&M) 5 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 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." Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have Crl.Misc.No.M-28826 of 2012 (O&M) 6 decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 120 dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Sector 10-A, Gurgaon District Gurgaon under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 23, 2012 anita