Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdayal Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 December, 2022
CRM-M-51319-2022 -1-
284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-51319-2022
Date of decision : 13.12.2022
Gurdayal Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vishal Malik, DAG, Haryana.
Ms. Manjit Bajwa, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for
quashing of FIR No.115 dated 28.02.2017 registered under Sections 148,
149, 323, 506 IPC at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and all
other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise.
On 23.11.2022, this Court had passed the following order:-
"This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
for quashing of FIR No.115 dated 28.02.2017 registered
under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC at Police Station
Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
1 of 5
all the persons concerned are party to the compromise.
Notice of motion for 13.12.2022.
On the asking of the Court, Mr.Praveen Bhadu, AAG,
Haryana. accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1.
Ms.Manjit Bajwa, Advocate, appears on behalf of
complainant-respondent no.2 and admits the factum of
compromise.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa
Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua
compromise within a period of 15 days.
The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit
a report on or before the next date of hearing containing the
following information:-
1. Number of persons arrayed as accused.
2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender?
3. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and
without any coercion or undue influence?
4. Whether the accused persons are involved in any other
FIR or not?
5. The trial Court is also directed to record the statement of
the Investigating Officer as to how many
victims/complainants are there in the FIR."
In pursuance of the abovesaid order, a report has been
submitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa. The relevant
portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"From the statements of parties and perusal of the
documents, it is observed that:-
1. Five persons are arrayed a accused in the present
case FIR.
2. None of the accused been declared proclaimed
offender.
3. The compromise arrived at between the parties is
2 of 5
genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue
influence.
4. The accused persons are not involved in any other
FIR.
5. As per statement of SI Naresh Kumar, only Manjit
Singh son of Mastan Singh is the victim in the present case"
A perusal of the said report would show that the compromise
has been found to be genuine, without any pressure or undue influence. It
has been stated that the statements of the complainant as well as the accused
have been recorded in the case and both have stated that the matter has been
compromised and they have no objection in case the FIR is quashed. It is
further stated that the statement of the complainant has been made
voluntarily without any fear, coercion or pressure.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners were not declared proclaimed offender in the present case.
Learned counsel for the State, as per instructions has stated that the said fact
is correct.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has again reiterated that
the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest of all
the persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity between the
two parties.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the file. After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this
Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners
and the complainant. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have
decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of
3 of 5
justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder
Singh and others Vs State of Punjab", reported as 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 opinion that the same is
required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or 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", reported as 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 what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is
allowed and FIR No.115 dated 28.02.2017 registered under Sections 148,
4 of 5
149, 323, 506 IPC at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and all
other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid judgment.
13.12.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
