Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harish vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 22 April, 2021 -1-
CRM-M-16835-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-16835-2021
Date of decision: 22.04.2021
Harish
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.124 dated
01.10.2018, registered at Police Station Women Police Station Panipat,
under Sections 323, 377, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC (Section 377 IPC deleted
subsequently), and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the
basis of compromise dated 28.08.2020, arrived at between the parties
during the mediation proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the marriage
between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 07.05.2017
and the couple resided together as husband and wife till 25.03.2018. There
is no child from the said wedlock. However on account of some flared up
misunderstanding, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner.
During the pendency of proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Hon’ble Supreme Court, on
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 09:07:21 :::
-2-
CRM-M-16835-2021
20.05.2020. During the said proceedings, the parties had arrived at an
amicable settlement. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order
dated 15.02.2021, disposed of the transfer petition in terms of the said
settlement.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of this Court, Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar,
DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
At this stage, Mr. Sanpreet Sandhu, Advocate, puts in an
appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and does not dispute the factum
of the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Mediation
Centre, Hon’ble Supreme Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The Mediator had held the conciliation proceedings and
submitted a settlement/agreement dated 28.08.2020, the operative part of
which reads as under:
“1. Both the parties Monika Sharma and Harish hereto
confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their
own free-will decided to live together as husband and wife
and have arrived at this Settlement in the presence of the
mediator, their respective counsels.
2. Both the parties Monika Sharma and Harish in view of
their decision to live together harmoniously; have jointly
taken decision that they will withdraw all cases filed by
them against each other.
3. That the following cases filed by the parties are as
under:-
I. Case Registration No.693/2019, under Section
125 Cr.P.C. Pending before the court of Sh. J.S.
Sidhu Ld. PJFC, Panipat fixed for 07-09-2020.
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 09:07:21 :::
-3-
CRM-M-16835-2021
II. Case Registration No. CRM 213/2019 Pending
before the court of Sh. J.S. Sidhu Ld. PJFC,
Panipat fixed for 07-09- 2020.
III. Case Registration no. 224/2019 vides FIR No.
124/2018 U/s 323, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC, under
the title of State Vs. Harish. Pending before the
court of MS Pragati Rana Ld. JMIC, Panipat
Fixed for 04-11-2020.
IV. Case Registration no. 257/2018 titled as Monika
vs. Harish in the court of MS Pragati Rana Ld.
JMIC, Panipat Fixed for 28-08-2020.
V. Case Registration no. CRR (F) 906-2019 titled
as Monika Sharma Vs. Harish Pending before
Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh.
VI. Case Registration H.M.A No.1810/2018 titled as
Harish vs. Monika Sharma Pending before Mrs.
Bimla Kumari Ld. Principal Judge Family
Court, North West, Distt. Rohini, Delhi.
4. That it has been mutually settled by both the parties:-
a. That there shall not be any third party
interference in the matrimonial life of the petitioner
and the respondent (from either side). Both the parties
shall lead their matrimonial life separately at the
allocated Govt. flat of the respondent (Harish) in
Delhi. Both the parties, Petitioner (Monika Sharma)
and Respondent (Harish Sharma) shall look into the
best interests of each other and the Respondent
(Harish) shall maintain the Petitioner (Monika
Sharma) and help her in her educational pursuits
financially for their comfortable future.
b. That both the parties herein agree that all the
pending cases whether specifically mentioned or not
between the parties & their family members herein
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 09:07:21 :::
-4-
CRM-M-16835-2021
shall be withdrawn and brought to closure as soon as
possible and as per the situation of COVID-19
warrants after passing of the order by this Hon’ble
Court in Transfer Petition. The parties and/or their
family members, relatives or representatives undertake
not to initiate any other litigation against each other in
future also. The Petitioner/husband shall also
withdraw Divorce Case Bearing No. 1810 of 2018
pending before PJFC. North West, Distt. Rohini, Delhi,
under Section 13 of H.M.A. as soon as possible and as
per the situation of COVID-19 warrants after passing
of the order by this Hon’ble Court in Transfer Petition.
c. That in view of the settlement amongst the
parties, the Petitioner/Monika Sharma will not pursue
FIR No. 124/2018 u/s 323, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC P.S.
Women Police Station Panipat against
respondent/Harish Sharma. Both the Parties shall
initiate steps for getting the FIR No. 124/2018 U/s 323,
406, 498- A, 506 IPC P.S. Women Police Station
Panipat quashed on the basis of the compromise. The
petitioner (Monika Sharma) will be bound to be
present in person and record her statement for
quashing the above said FIR before the competent
Court of Law, as and when required.
d. Both the parties agree and undertake that they
have settled all their disputes and grievances against
each other and against their family members amicably
and they shall not file any complaints, proceedings
whether criminal or civil, if any against each other or
their family members. Both the parties further
undertake to withdraw the aforesaid matters or any
other matter if any pending against each other
anywhere.
5. By signing this Agreement, the parties hereto
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 09:07:21 :::
-5-
CRM-M-16835-2021
solemnly state and affirm that they have no further
claims or demands against each other and all the
disputes and differences have been amicably settled by
the parties hereto, through the process of Mediation.
6. The parties undertake to abide by the terms and
condition set out in the above, which have been arrived
without any coercion, duress or collusion and
undertake not to raise any dispute whatsoever
henceforth and are bound by the aforesaid terms and
conditions.
7. That the parties are accordingly signing this
settlement agreement in presence of all named above,
to authenticate their will to comply the same as agreed
above.
8. Both the parties further agree that while
carrying out the above said stipulations no party
should take advantage of its own wrong.”
From the perusal of the compromise, it is axiomatic that
respondent No.2 has decided to get all the cases, including the impugned
FIR, quashed. It is also settled between the parties that all the disputes and
differences have been amicably settled by the parties through the process of
Mediation. It appears that the compromise has been entered into between
the parties to bury the hatchet enabling them to live with peace and
harmony.
The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh
vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs.
State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that
compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 09:07:21 :::
-6-
CRM-M-16835-2021
proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and
in case of involving non-compoundable offence.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus
State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held as
under:-
“57. 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 under Section 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 pre-dominatingly 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 personnel 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
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 09:07:21 :::
-7-
CRM-M-16835-2021
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 same view has also been reiterated by Hon’ble the Apex
Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and
another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.
Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties,
therefore, continuance of the proceedings arising out of the FIR in
question, would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
In the facts and circumstances of this case coupled with the
fact that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties, this Court
finds that the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings
emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.124
dated 01.10.2018, registered at Police Station Women Police Station
Panipat, under Sections 323, 377, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC (Section 377
IPC deleted subsequently), and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of the compromise
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 09:07:21 :::
-8-
CRM-M-16835-2021
dated 28.08.2020, subject to him depositing the costs of Rs.10,000/- with
the Poor Patients’ Welfare Fund, Postgraduate Institute of Medical
Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.
Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the
terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.
22.04.2021 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 09:07:21 :::
Comments