Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Sehgal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 December, 2022
CRM-M-26462-2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-26462-2020
Date of decision : 06.12.2022
Vijay Sehgal and others ...... Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Govind Mor, Advocate for
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking
quashing of FIR No.325 dated 18.06.2020 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station Pehowa,
District Kurukshetra on the basis of affidavit/compromise dated
23.07.2020 (Annexure P-3).
2. On 30.03.2022, the following order was passed:-
"CRM-7116-2022
Prayer in the instant application is for
preponement of the main petition, which is fixed for
21.09.2022, on the ground that in compliance of the
order dated 17.11.2021, both the parties had appeared
before learned trial Court for getting their statements
recorded except petitioner No.1 as he was out of India.
In view of the above and with no objection from
the counsel opposite, the instant application is allowed
and accordingly, the main petition is preponed to today
1 of 5
itself.
CRM-9521-2022 in/and
CRM-M-26462-2020 (O&M)
In pursuance of the order dated 17.11.2021
passed by this Court, report of learned SDJM, Pehowa
has been received, wherein it has been submitted that
the statements of parties could not be recorded as one
of the accused namely Vijay Sehgal (petitioner No.1)
failed to appear before the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners requests that
one more opportunity be granted to appear before
learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for getting the
statements recorded.
The aforesaid request is acceded to.
Parties are again directed to appear before trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 08.04.2022 for getting their
statements recorded.
Report of the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court be
awaited for the date fixed i.e.21.09.2022."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from JMIC, Pehowa
has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial
Court has recorded as follows:-
"xx xx xx
Statement of accused Vijay Sehal through whatsapp
number 9728879980 has been recorded. The same
was duly identified by learned counsel for accused. It
is clear from perusal of the statements of the parties
that they have amicably settled the matter after
arriving at a compromise and settlement. The
compromise seems to be genuine and voluntary and
out of free will."
4. Mr. Govind Mor, Advocate for Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate
appears for respondent No.2 and admits the fact of parties having
2 of 5
compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all
proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
5. Learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR
is quashed based upon the compromise.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully gone through the records of the case.
7. 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 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.
3 of 5
(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.
8. 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.
4 of 5
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.325 dated
18.06.2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420
of IPC at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and all proceedings
arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
06.12.2022 JUDGE
Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
5 of 5
