Karan Ahuja and Another v. State of Haryana and Anr

SUMEET GOEL  , J .

¶1By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.0396 dated 04.10.2021 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station, Jagadhri City, District Yamuna Nagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.

2.  On 16.01.2024, the following order was passed: "The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom  on the basis  of a compromise having been effected between the parties. Notice of motion. At this stage, Ms. Mahima Yashpal DAG Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State and accepts notice. Ms. Ashu Rana, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama for respondent No.2. The same be taken on record. CRM-M-2110-2024 2 2024:PHHC:032145

The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner:

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court/IlaqaMagistrate concerned on 24.01.2024 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Ilaqa Magistrate   for   recording   statements   of   the petitioners as well as of the complainant qua the factum of compromise. As and when any such appearance   is   made,   the   trial   Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall do the needful for recording the statements of the parties qua the factum of the compromise.   It   shall   be   open   to   the   trial Court/Illaqa   Magistrate   to   either   record   the statements of the parties by physical process or by video conferencing as deemed appropriate by the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(ii) In case the statement is to be recorded by way of video conferencing, the parties concerned shall be duly identified through video conferencing by their respective counsel, subject to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer.

(iii) The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate may also choose   to   get   the   statements   of   the   parties recorded through some Commissioner, appointed by the Court who would be some Advocate having sufficient standing at the Bar. In case the statement is recorded through some Commissioner, such Commissioner/Advocate shall furnish an affidavit after recording statements to the effect that the parties had appeared before him/her and he/she had recorded their statements as per law and that the said parties had been duly identified by their respective   counsel.   This   shall   be   subject   to satisfaction of trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. After recording the statements of all the affected parties in either of the aforesaid manner, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit its report on the basis of the statements so recorded as to whether all the affected parties   have   entered   into   a   compromise   and   as   to whether the compromise in question is found to be a valid compromise and has been effected without there being any kind of influence or coercion. The trial Court/Ilaqa Magistrate shall also report as regards the following facts after seeking information from Investigating Officer, concerned:

(i)  Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioners, arrayed in this petition?

(ii)   Whether there is any other complainant or affected/aggrieved   party   other   than   the respondents, arrayed in the petition? CRM-M-2110-2024 3 2024:PHHC:032145

(iii    8hether an- accused has #een dec!ared Proc!ai"ed6ffender9 The report #e su#"itted #efore this Court #efore the next date of hearing i%e%0:%40%0403% *. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated !,.)!.!)!- fro6 3udicia2 Ma%isatrate (st 12ass, 3a%adhri has 7een received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the <ria2 1ourt has recorded as fo22ows:0 "1.It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana that the affected parties have entered into a compromise. The compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. Thus, the compromise is found to be a valid compromise.

¶2It is further submitted that as per statement of L/HC Rajni no. 1041, Investigating Officer, which is attached herewith, there were total five accused persons namely:-

(i) Karan Ahuja s/o Ashok Ahuja

(ii) Ashok Ahuja s/o Topan Singh

(iii) Mamta Ahuja w/o Ashok Ahuja

iv) Chand Ahuja s/o Ashok Ahuja

(v) Diksha w/o Darpan Arora were arraigned as accused in the present FIR. However, challan was only presented against accused Karan Ahuja s/o Ashok Ahuja and Ashok Ahuja s/o Topan Singh. Therefore, there is no other accused other than the petitioners arraigned in the petition no. CRM-M-2110-2024.

¶3Only one victim/complainant namely Konika w/o Karan Ahuja is there in the present case. Further, there is no other complainant or affected/aggrieved party arraigned in the present case.

¶4In the present case, none of the accused has been declared proclaimed offender." -. =earned counse2 for respondent  o.! ad6its the fact of parties havin% co6pro6ised and states that he has no o7jection in case the '(R and a22 proceedin%s su7se&uent thereto a%ainst the petitioners are &uashed. >.  .i6i2ar2y, 2earned .tate counse2 has stated no o7jection in case the '(R is &uashed 7ased upon the co6pro6ise 8Anne9ure P0!:. ,.  ( have heard 2earned 1ounse2 for the parties and have carefu22y %one throu%h the records of the case. ?. <his 1ourt and the Hon@72e Ape9 1ourt has repeated2y dea2t JATIN with the issue of e9ercise of jurisdiction under .ection -/! of the 1ode to CRM-M-2110-2024 4 2024:PHHC:032145

quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court is :

(a)  Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code.

(b)  However, wider the power greater the caution.

(c)  The underlining principle while exercising such power is that   it   can   be   invoked   to   quash   the   proceedings recognizing compromise between   the   parties   in   the matters   which   are   overwhelmingly   and predominantly   of   civil   character   like   commercial transactions or  arising   out   of   matrimonial relationship or family disputes.

(d)  The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving  heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious  impact on society.

(e)  Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR  under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained,   whether   such   injuries   inflicted   on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons  used CRM-M-2110-2024 5 2024:PHHC:032145

(f)  Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible  only after the evidence is collected after investigation and  chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise  cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.

(g)  While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are  of private in nature, High Court is required to consider  antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he  was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to  enter   into   a compromise.

¶8Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as :-

(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.

(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature.

(iii) The parties have compromised.

(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.

(v) Complainant/victim   is   reported   to   have   entered   into compromise on his own volition.

¶9Consequently,   the   petition   is   allowed.  FIR   No.0396   dated

04.10.2021 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station, Jagadhri City, District Yamuna Nagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE March  06, 2024 I attest to the accuracy and Whether reportable: Yes/No

CRM-M-2110-2024 1 2024:PHHC:032145 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2110-2024 Date of decision: 06.03.2024 KARAN AHUJA AND ANOTHER ....PETITIONERS V/s STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Pawan Attri, Advocate for Ms. Pinki Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG, Haryana. Ms. Ashu Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2. *****