In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR filed in a family dispute case.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil delivered the verdict in the case of Sharda Devi & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (CRM-M-16146-2024) on April 3, 2024.
The petitioners, represented by Dr. Sumati Jund, had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash FIR No. 321 dated October 11, 2023. The FIR was initially registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Khol, District Rewari.
The petitioners also sought to nullify all consequential proceedings, including the final report (challan) filed under Section 173 CrPC on December 16, 2023, which charged them under Sections 323, 34, and 452 of the IPC.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around a long-standing dispute between closely related family members living in adjacent houses. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 have been engaged in frequent quarrels, allegedly stemming from dissatisfaction over property partition and settlement. The conflict escalated to physical altercations, with both parties accusing each other of assault.
The petitioners claimed that on September 13, 2023, they were physically assaulted by respondent No. 2 and her family members, providing medical-legal reports (MLRs) as evidence. They also alleged another attack on October 6, 2023, where the 64-year-old petitioner No. 1 suffered multiple wounds from a blunt weapon.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
The primary legal issue before the court was whether to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on the petitioners’ claims of being victims rather than aggressors. However, the court found that both parties had inflicted injuries on each other and had pending criminal prosecutions.
Justice Moudgil noted that the prosecution had already submitted the final report under Section 173 CrPC on December 16, 2023, charging only the petitioners. The challan indicated that X-ray reports of petitioner No. 1 showed no bone injury, and it was recorded that the petitioners were the aggressive party.
In his decision, Justice Moudgil refused to interfere with the ongoing legal proceedings, stating:
“Both the petitioners and the respondent No.2 and her family members have inflicted injuries on each other; both the parties have lodged criminal prosecution and the same are pending trial and since they have been enjoying this fight since long and for that matter, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere in this petition as also the ‘enjoyment’ of the parties.”
Notable Observations
The court made several pointed observations about the nature of the dispute and the behavior of the parties involved. Justice Moudgil remarked:
Also Read
“These type of mutual tussle between members of two blood-related families is common if the same are veiled behind the four corners of the house but things take ugly turn when they enter into blood feud which is witnessed by one and all and confirms this fact though we have obtained various degrees and academic qualifications from convent and smart schools and colleges, however, without ingraining cultural and familial values, such knowledge is completely meaningless, useless and otiose and such unempathetic behavior brings us into the category of not better than animals.”
Justice Moudgil also showed concern to the way the family members are fighting and minced no words to observe that merely obtaining various degrees and academic qualifications from convent and smart schools and colleges is meaningless and useless without ingraining cultural and familial values.
