Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.91 dated 16.3.2012, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonepat and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of Compromise-family Court settlement deed dated 19.9.2019 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties.

Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.2 i.e the complainant lodged the FIR in question against the petitioners-accused. It was alleged that she was married with Parvesh on 28.5.2006 as per Hindu rites. Her father gave dowry in the marriage more than his capacity. However, her husband and his family members were not satisfied with the same and soon after the marriage, they started harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry. They raised demand of Rs.2 lacs to purchase the car. Out of the dowry articles, gold ornaments were kept by her mother-in-law. The complainant was being taunted by saying that she belongs to a beggar's family. Her sister-in-law used to instigate her husband. Besides this they left 1 of 10 no stone unturned in causing harassment to her on every petty issues. On her resistance, she used to be beaten. On the instigation of the mother-in-law and sister-in-law her husband tried to kill her. In order to save herself, she confined herself in a room by bolting the door and she dialed No.100 and called the police. On arrival, the police arrested her husband, whereas her mother-in-law and sister-in-law fled away from there. Having no other alternative, respondent-2/complainant filed the present FIR. The investigation commenced and the challan was presented. On the conclusion of the trial, accused Parvesh, Rami Devi and Mannu were convicted under Sections 323, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC were sentenced and convicted for three years rigorous imprisonment by the trial Court vide its order dated 9.7.2019. The petitioners challenged the same by filing an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the same is pending adjudication. During the pendency of the appeal, good sense prevailed and with the intervention of the respectables, the parties entered into a compromise and decided to bury the hatchet. The petitioners approached this Court by way the present petition for quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise arrived at.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. He submits that though the petitioners have already been convicted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, however, during the pendency of the appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, the parties have arrived at a compromise and respondent No.2 does not want to prosecute the petitioners any more. It is also submitted that petitioner No.1 and the complainant had 2 of 10 also filed a petition under Section 13-B(2) of HMA, 1955 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi and the Court passed a decree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent on 13.1.2020. Thus, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings alongwith judgment and conviction order dated 9.7.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharkhoda, Sonepat may kindly be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court titled as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR 1052; Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 322; and Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102.

This Court vide order dated 6.11.2020 directed the parties to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat was also directed to send its report.

In pursuance to the same, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sonepat, sent its report dated 6.1.2021 to this Court. With the report, he has also annexed the original statement of complainant- respondent No.2 Nisha Rani Bhardwaj and joint statement of the petitioners, namely, Parvesh, Rami Devi and Mannu recorded on 6.1.2021. On the basis of the statements, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sonepat has concluded in its report that the parties have compromised the matter of their own free will and without any undue influence, threat or coercion. It is mentioned in the report that initially the complaint was filed against Parvesh, Rami Devi, Smt. Mannu, Smt. Kumud and Dharmender, however, charge sheet was filed against Parvesh and Rami Devi and remaining 3 of 10 accused were mentioned in column No.2. It is also mentioned in the report that during the course of trial Mannu, Kumud and Dharmender were summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, upon conclusion of trial, accused Parvesh, Rami Devi and Mannu were convicted under Sections 323, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and other accused were acquitted vide judgment dated 4.7.2019. It is further mentioned that no other FIR has been found to have been registered against the accused persons.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.