Jitender and Another vs State of Haryana and Another

Inderjit Singh, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No. 337 dated 13.11.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 354-D, 506 and 509 IPC at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant-Neetu Rana on the allegations that the petitioners are sending dirty SMSs on her mobile and they have also created her facebook ID and are talking to some other boys through her facebook ID. Now with the intervention of the members of Panchayat, respectable and elder persons of the Village, differences of both the parties have been settled and the matter has been clarified between them vide compromise dated 28.3.2014 (Annexure-P.2). Now the dispute has been settled between the parties and she has no complaint against the petitioners.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has sent his report dated 20.5.2014 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one. Complainant Neetu Rana has stated that the compromise has been entered into with the accused-petitioners voluntarily, which is genuine, without any threat, coercion or pressure from any side and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Statements of the father of juvenile Jitender as well as the juvenile have also been recorded, wherein the father of the juvenile has stated that they have compromised the matter in the Panchayat, which is with their consent and without any pressure or coercion.

Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No. 2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No. 2.

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases 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 even though they are not compoundable. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and the law laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (supra), this petition is allowed and FIR No. 337 dated 13.11.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 354-D, 506 and 509 IPC at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.