Tushar Verma and Anr v. State of Haryana and Another

SUMEET GOEL , J .

¶1By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.107 dated 20.09.2021 under Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506, 509 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Women West Gurugram, District Gurugram and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/settlement dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.

¶2On 13.02.2024, 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 of Haryana and accepts notice. Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate has filed vakalatnama for respondent No. 2. The same be taken on record. The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner: CRM-M-7563-2024 2 2024:PHHC:032465

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 16.02.2024 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statement 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 statement 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/Illaqa 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.

(iii) Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender? The report be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing i.e. 06.03.2024."

¶3Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 26.02.2024 from Judicial Magisatrate Ist Class, Gurugram has been received, which is taken I attest to the accuracy andon record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- CRM-M-7563-2024 3 2024:PHHC:032465

"1-With respect to the genuineness, authenticity and veracity of the compromise, it is submitted that parties were questioned orally whether they are voluntarily settling the matter to which they replied in the affirmative. Further. from the demeanor of the parties also they did not appear to be under any coercion or undue influence. Therefore, prima-facie it appears that the compromise arrived at between the parties is valid, genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence and all affected parties have entered into the compromise. 2-As per report of Investigating officer and as per final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. there are two accused persons in the present FIR namely Tushar Verma and Raj Kumar Verma and one complainant namely Vaishali. Both the accused persons have been charge-sheeted. 3-As per report of Investigating officer and as per final report unde Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. three is only one complainant in this FIR by the name o Vaishali D/o. Tilak Raj and she is the respondent in the petition under Sectio 482 Cr.P.C. 4-. As per the report of Investigating officer, none of the accuse persons have been declared as proclaimed offender.;

¶0?earned counse6 for respondent !o." admits the fact of parties havin' compromised and states that he has no o8jection in case the )*+ and a66 proceedin's su8se(uent thereto a'ainst the petitioners are (uashed.

¶4imi6ar6y, 6earned tate counse6 has stated no o8jection in case the )*+ is (uashed 8ased upon the compromise 9Anne:ure P3";.

¶1* have heard 6earned 5ounse6 for the parties and have carefu66y 'one throu'h the records of the case. -. >his 5ourt and the Hon@86e Ape: 5ourt has repeated6y dea6t &ith the issue of e:ercise of jurisdiction under ection 02" of the 5ode to (uash proceedin' in non3compounda86e offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kul inder Singh ! others vs. State of Punjab ! another, 200" (3) #C# (Cri$inal) 10%2 and #a$ Go&al and another vs. State of 'adh(a Pradesh, 2021()) #.C.#. (Cri$inal) 322 (Cri$inal *&&eal +o.1),- of 2012 de.ided on 2-th of Se&te$ber, 2021). >he proposition of 6a& that emer'es from the aforesaid decisions rendered 8y the Hon@86e Ape: 5ourt and this 5ourt is : CRM-M-7563-2024 4 2024:PHHC:032465

(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 etc.

(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 CRM-M-7563-2024 5 2024:PHHC:032465

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.107 dated 20.09.2021 under Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506, 509 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Women West Gurugram, District Gurugram and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/settlement dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE March 06, 2024

CRM-M-7563-2024 1 2024:PHHC:032465 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7563-2024 Date of decision: 06.03.2024 TUSHAR VERMA AND ANR ....PETITIONERS V/s STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Mohak Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. *****