SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kanhaiya Mittal vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 4 May, 2018


CRM-M-3627 of 2018
DATE OF DECISION : 04.05.2018

Kanhaiya Mittal
State of Haryana and another


Present : Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Mr. Arun Singh, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.



1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.24 dated

16.05.2017, under Sections 323, 34, 406, 498A, 506 IPC, registered at

Police Station Women Police Station, Hisar, and all subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom, on account of the joint statement of first motion under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, recorded on 13.07.2017

(Annexure P-2).

2. Vide order dated 23.03.2018, a direction was issued to the

Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court to record the statements of the parties and to

submit a report regarding the genuineness of the compromise effected

between the parties. In pursuance thereof, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

1 of 5
06-05-2018 09:26:14 :::
CRM-M-3627-2018 -2-

Hisar has submitted a report dated 16.04.2018, after recording the

statements of the parties. The statements of the complainant – Meetu Goyal

and accused Kanhaiya Mittal – petitioner in the present case were recorded.

They got their statements recorded acknowledging that they have sorted out

all the differences and a compromise has been effected between them. This

fact is not disputed either by learned State counsel or by learned counsel for

the complainant.

3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is not

proclaimed offender.

4. The report of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar further

states that the compromise between the parties was entered into voluntarily,

without any pressure or inducement.

5. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder

Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High

Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of

non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court

feels that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any

Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is

not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

6. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of

Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 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

2 of 5
06-05-2018 09:26:15 :::
CRM-M-3627-2018 -3-

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

3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 06-05-2018 09:26:15 :::
CRM-M-3627-2018 -4-

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.”

7. Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have

decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the

criminal proceedings to continue.

4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 06-05-2018 09:26:15 :::
CRM-M-3627-2018 -5-

8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.24 dated

16.05.2017, under Sections 323, 34, 406, 498A, 506 IPC, registered at

Police Station Women Police Station, Hisar and all subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

May 04, 2018 ( AVNEESH JHINGAN )

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No

5 of 5
06-05-2018 09:26:15 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation