Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kush Sachdeva And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(268) CRM-M-3168-2022
Date of Decision: 02.08.2022
Kush Sachdeva & another --Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & another --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ.
Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Kirpal Singh, A.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate for
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent no.2.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of FIR No.522 dated 29.12.2020 under Sections 354,
406, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station, Karnal Civil Line,
District Karnal and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the
basis of the compromise dated 7.4.2021 (Annexure P-2).
FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent
No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the
intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and
they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from the compromise.
On the basis of the same, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of
this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a
futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in
question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be
quashed in the interest of justice.
1 of 5
This Court vide orders dated 10.2.2022 directed the parties to
appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate for recording their
statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty
Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
In pursuance to the same, learned JMIC, Karnal sent his report
dated 26.5.2022 to this Court. With the report he has also annexed the
original statements of complainant Isha and joint statement of petitioners
Kush Sachdeva and Neelam Sachdeva along with statement of ASI Sunita
recorded on 10.3.2022. On the basis of the statements, learned JMIC,
Karnal has concluded in the report that it appears that the parties have
entered into a compromise voluntarily and that there is no other accused in
the present case and accused have not been declared Proclaimed Offender.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned JMIC, Karnal.
A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would
show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C.
is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for
compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed
and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the
continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others
2 of 5
Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and
others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases
675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt
with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.
Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of
Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt
with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing
of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:-
"61. 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 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
3 of 5
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 a different footing for
the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences 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, the
High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the offender and the
victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the
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 the affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding."
Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
plethora of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the
4 of 5
parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the
proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by
allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR
would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the
legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls
within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence,
FIR No.522 dated 29.12.2020 under Sections 354, 406, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC
registered at Police Station, Karnal Civil Line, District Karnal and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners
on the basis of the compromise. Needless to say that the parties shall remain
bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements
recorded before the court below.
Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
02.08.2022
lucky Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
