Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 12 December, 2022
CRM-M-43932-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
248
CRM-M-43932-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.12.2022
SANDEEP AND OTHERS
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Amandeep, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.429 dated
30.07.2022, under Sections 385, 387, 506, 120-B of the IPC registered at Police
Station Sadar, Gurgaon, District Gurugram and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 01.09.2022
(Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion was issued on 22.09.2022 and both the parties were
directed to appear before the trial Court for recording their statements in the
context of genuineness of the compromise. The trial Court was also directed to
submit its report with regard to genuineness of the compromise.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 10.10.2022 has been
received from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram. A perusal of
the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been
recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled
1 of 3
CRM-M-43932-2022 (O&M) -2-
between the parties and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed and the compromise effected between them is genuine, without any
undue influence and coercion. It is stated in the report that there are six accused.
None of the accused has been declared as proclaimed offender and there is one
another FIR registered against accused Shakti, however he has been acquitted
vide judgment dated 11.07.2022 and except him, none of the other accused is
involved in any other FIR.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone
through the case file.
After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court
finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner(s) and the
complainant(s). Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to
live in peace, this Court is of the view that in order to secure the ends of justice,
the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.
While relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case
of "Jayrajsingh Digvijaysingh Rana vs State of Gujrat and another", 2012(12)
SCC 401, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that where there is a partial
compromise with some of the accused then also the proceedings against the said
accused should be quashed as the same would not even remotely result in conviction
of the said accused.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh
and others Vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that
High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of
non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court is of
the view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or
2 of 3
CRM-M-43932-2022 (O&M) -3-
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to
matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed that in
order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court,
inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which
a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"57. 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. XXX---XXX"
In view of the above, the petition is allowed and FIR No.429 dated
30.07.2022, under Sections 385, 387, 506, 120-B of the IPC registered at Police
Station Sadar, Gurgaon, District Gurugram, and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 01.09.2022
(Annexure P-2), are quashed qua the petitioners.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
December 12, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
