Bhoti Devi and Another vs State of Haryana and Another

Ritu Bahri, J.—Quashing of F.I.R. No. 251 dated 07.12.2012 u/s 323/307/379/34 IPC and complaint u/s. 323/324/452/354/506 IPC registered, at P.S. Chapar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1 and P-2) is sought on the basis of compromise and affidavit dated 15.06.2013 (Annexure P3 and P-4). F.I.R. has been registered at the instance of brother of respondent No. 2-Dharamvir against the petitioners and complaint has been registered by the petitioners against respondent No. 2. Both the parties have given beatings to each other. Hence the F.I.R. and the complaint.

Now, the matter has now been resolved between the parties vide compromise and affidavit dated 15.06.2013 (Annexure P3). Both the parties belonged to one family and are cousins and houses of parties are in front of each other. Now respectable of village and relatives of both the parties, keeping in view of close relation between the parties. As per compromise, it has been agreed that petitioner No. 1 will withdraw her complaint (P-2) pending against respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 will make a statement before Court for quashing of F.I.R. and now there is no dispute between the parties. Complainant has also given his affidavit in with regard to the validity of the compromise.

In compliance of order dated 15.07.2013, report of District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari has been received. As per report, statements of both the parties have been recorded. Separate statements of the complainant-Dharamvir and respondent No. 2 have been recorded to the effect that they have compromised the matter with the accused without any pressure, threat or coercion. The complainant has no objection if the F.I.R. be quashed against the accused persons. Separate Statement of Ram Parkash, Bohti Devi and Gurmeet has been recorded to the same effect.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in a case of Dimpey Gujral and Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Others, while examining a case of compromise in a trial u/s 307/452/566/147 IPC accepted the compromise by holding that even though the offence u/s 307 IPC was non-compoundable but since the offences were of personal nature and arising out of matrimonial dispute relating to dowry, the High Court can quash the proceedings. The possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. The larger Bench in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, after considering the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judgments of this Court, concluded as under:--

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 u/s 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 predominatingly 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 personal 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 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.

The dispute in the present case is between close family members and both the parties have registered cases against each other and there was no offence against the society. Thus this Court has no hesitation in accepting the compromise as no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.

Consequently, in view of the status report and in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, , the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.

Accordingly, F.I.R. No. 251 dated 07.12.2012 u/s 323/307/379/34 IPC and complaint u/s. 323/324/452/354/506 IPC registered, at P.S. Chapar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1 and P-2) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners and respondent No. 2. The petition stands disposed of.