254 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-35992-2022
Date of decision: 18.01.2023
Bijender Singh Lather ...........Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Sameer Rathaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Harkaran Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.160 dated 19.06.2020 under Sections 406/420/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 6, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjhar, Haryana (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.04.2022 (Annexure P-2) and letter along with affidavit dated 16.04.2022 of complainant/respondent No.2 (Annexures P-3 & P-4).
On 17.08.2022; the following order was passed:-
"Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of FIR No.160 dated 19.06.2020, under Sections 406, 420, 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 6, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana and all other proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise agreement dated 16.04.2022 (Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Addl.A.G., Haryana puts in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Copy of the paper book be supplied during the course of the day.
Let the parties to appear before the trial Court/Area Magistrate as the case may be, on 13.09.2022 for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise. Trial Court is directed to report on the following points:-
(i) how many total accused are facing the trial;
(ii) whether any of the accused was declared proclaimed offender at any stage of trial;
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2023 10:15:05 ::: CRM-M-35992-2022 -2-
(iii) status/stage of the trial/case;
(iv) to record the statments of all the concerned parties with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise;
(v) to record the statement of Investigating Officer with regard to points No.(i), (ii) and (iii) as above.
Report be sent through District and Sessions Judge, before the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 17.10.2022.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from JMIC, Bahadurgarh dated 16.09.2022 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"xx xx xx (1) As per Investigating Officer, SI Ranbir Singh, 676/SPT, Economic Offence Wing Jhajjar, five accused persons namley Bijender, Sajjan Singh Beniwal, Ram Niwas Lather, Joginder Singh Lather, Bhawna Lather were arraigned in present case FIR No.160 dated 19.06.2020, Under Section 406, 420, 506 of IPC and P.S. Sector-6, Bahadurgarh. (2) It is further submitted that no accused have been declared as proclaimed person in this case. There are certain pending cases against accused i.e. Accused Joginder Lather
1. FIR No. 59/19 under Sections 420,406,120B of IPC, EOW New Delhi under trial.
2. FIR No. 161 dated 19.06.2020 under Sections 406,420,506 of IPC, PS Sector-6 Bahadurgarh under investigation.
3. FIR No. 25 dated 01.02.2021 under Sections 406,409 of IPC, PS. Sector-6 Bahadurgarh under investigation.
4.FIR No. 112 dated 16.04.2021 under Sections 406,420,467,471,468,120B of IPC, PS. Sector-6, Bahadurgarh under investigation.
5. FIR No. 188 dated 12.06.2021 under Sections 406, 409 of IPC, PS. Sector-6 Bahadurgarh under investigation.
6. FIR No. 279 dated 20.06.2021 under Sections 420,406,409,506 of IPC, PS. Sector-6 Bahadurgarh under investigation.
7. FIR No. 183 dated 04.06.2022 under Sections 418,420,467,471,120-B of IPC, PS. Sector-6 Bahadurgarh under investigation.
Accused Bijender Singh Lather
1. FIR No. 59/19 under Sections 420,406,120B of IPC, EOW New Delhi under trial.
2. FIR No. 161 dated 19.06.2020 under Sections 406,420,506 of IPC, PS Sector-6 Bahadurgarh under investigation.
3. FIR No. 25 dated 01.02.2021 under Sections 406,409 of IPC, PS. Sector-6 Bahadurgarh under investigation.
4. FIR No. 88 dated 12.06.2021 under Sections 406,409 of IPC, PS. Sector-6 Bahadurgarh under investigation.
5. FIR No. 279 dated 20.06.2021 under Sections 420,406,409,506 of IPC, PS. Sector-6 Bahadurgarh under investigation.
Accused Sajjan Singh Beniwal
1. FIR No. 279 dated 20.06.2021 under Sections 420,406,409,506 of IPC 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2023 10:15:06 ::: CRM-M-35992-2022 -3- PS. Sector-6 Bahadurgarh under investigation.
2. FIR No. 59/19 under Sections 420,406,120B of IPC, EOW New Delhi under trial.
3. FIR No. 161 dated 19.06.2020 under Sections 406,420,506 of IPC, PS. Sector-6 Bahadurgarh under investigation.
Accused Bhawana Lather
1. FIR No. 59/19 under Sections 420,406, 120B of IPC, EOW New Delhi under trial
2. FIR No. 161 dated 19.06.2020 under Sections 406,420,506 of IPC, PS Sector-6 Bahadurgarh under investigation.
Accused Ram Niwas
1. FIR No. 59/19 under Sections 420,406, 120B of IPC, EOW New Delhi under trial.
2. FIR No. 161 dated 19.06.2020 under Sections 406,420,506 of IPC, PS. Sector-6 Bahadurgarh under investigation."
The aforesaid report reveals that there are five accused persons namely Bijender, Sajjan Singh Beniwal, Ram Niwas Lather, Joginder Singh Lather and Bhawna Later. However, the compromise has only been effected with accused-petitioner Bijender Singh Lather.
Mr. Harkiran Singh, Advocate appears for respondent No.2 and admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner are quashed.
Similarly, the learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
After considering judgment rendered by the Apex Court in 'Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another', 2012(10) SCC 303, 'State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others' (2019) 5 SCC 688, '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 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2023 10:15:06 ::: CRM-M-35992-2022 -4- 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021), the proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Court and this Court is :
(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is not affected 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 has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise Thus, 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) The present matter does not fall within the exceptions as carved out in Laxmi Narayan's case (supra).
(ii) The offences are 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 has entered into compromise on his own volition.
Since the parties are ad idem that the compromise/settlement has to be read strictly inter se between the parties to the present petition and the 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2023 10:15:06 ::: CRM-M-35992-2022 -5- complainant wants to pursue prosecution of rest of accused, namely, Sajjan Singh Beniwal, Ram Niwas Lather, Joginder Singh Lather and Bhawna Later and it is only Bijender Singh Lather who has approached this Court by way of present petition, the present petition is being entertained and allowed qua Bijender Singh Lather only.
The question raised by State counsel as to whether the FIR can be quashed in part or not already stands answered by Apex Court in 'Lovely Salhotra and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi)' reported as (2018) 12 SCC 391, wherein it was observed as under:-
"xx xx xx We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellants - herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants - herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 - herein only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against co-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie."
It is noted here that one of the pending FIRs i.e. FIR No.161 dated 19.06.2020 under Sections 406/120/506 of IPC against the petitioner has been quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2022 passed in CRM-M-36041-2022.
In view of above, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.160 dated 19.06.2020 under Sections 406/420/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 6, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjhar, Haryana (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, qua the petitioner only.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
18.01.2023 JUDGE
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2023 10:15:06 :::