Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbir Singh Rana vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 October, 2021
236 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-38144-2021
th
Date of Decision: 5 October, 2021
Harbir Singh Rana
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Present : Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amrik Singh Narwal, DAG, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
***
AVNEESH JHINGAN , J.(Oral)
1. Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court is convened through
video conference.
2. This is petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing of criminal complaint No. 23 dated 26.09.2016
under Section 420 of IPC as well as the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 20.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Assandh (Karnal).
3. The brief facts are that a complaint was made by Asha Rani
against Harbir Singh Rana-petitioner, retired Clerk in Municipal
Committee, Assandh. As per the allegations petitioner fraudulently
grabbed the pension amount of the complainant by imposing/affixing
thumb impression fraudulently. The petitioner was convicted under Section
420 IPC on 20th July, 2019 by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Assandh
(Karnal).
1 of 4
Vide order dated even date he was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of
default to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
4. Aggrieved of the conviction in petition , appeal was preferred
which is pending. During the pendency of the appeal the issue was
compromised between the parties vide compromise dated 9th March, 2021.
Hence the present petition was filed
5. Vide order dated 14th September, 2021 parties were directed to
get their statements recorded before the Appellate Court.
6. Report dated 28th September, 2021 received from Additional
Sessions Judge, Karnal states as under:
" After recording their statements, this Court is
of the view that due to the intervention of respectable persons
of the society, a compromise had taken place between the
parties. From the statement of the parties recorded on oath, it
appears to the undersigned that compromise is genuine and
without any coercion or undue influence, and the matter has
voluntarily been compromised between the above mentioned
parties.
However, as per the report submitted by the
Investigating Officer no person is involved in the occurrence
of in any case."
7. Supreme Court in Ramgopal V. State of Madhya Pradesh
in its judgement dated 29.09.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012
held:-
"13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-
heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of
a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that
trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed
against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole
form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws
evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without
saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-
conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion
with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding
the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been
2 of 4
arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness
of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and
after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-
ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 would be to
secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line
constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial
justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 may lead to rigid or specious
justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case,
may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases
where heinous offences have been proved against
perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as
cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors.
v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Laxmi
Narayan (Supra).
19.We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to
Section 320 Cr.P.C., 1973 where the Court is squarely guided
by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences
`compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-
ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 or vested in this Court under
Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the
metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C., 1973 Nonetheless,
we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be
exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal
proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the
offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the
injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between
the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused
persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported
offence and/or other relevant considerations."
8. The dispute in present case can be categorized as a personal or
private in nature between the parties. With the intervention of respectables
and the members of the Panchayat parties have compromised the matter
3 of 4
in order to maintain cordial relationship. The allegations are related to
2014, there is nothing on the record regarding any untoward incident
before or after the compromise. The quashing of the proceedings will help
to advance peace and harmony and the step put forth by the parties to
forget and forgive any ill will.
9. Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as a result of the amicable
settlement between the parties the above mentioned complaint, conviction
order and order of sentence are quashed.
10. The appeal pending before the Appellate Court has been
rendered infructuous.
11. The petition is disposed of.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN )
JUDGE
th
5 October, 2021
Parveen Sharma
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
