Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 December, 2022
CRM-M-28171-2019 1
233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28171-2019
Date of decision : 15.12.2022
Deepak Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Gautam Kaile, Advocate for
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana
for respondents No.1 to 3.
None for respondent No.4.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing
of FIR No.212 dated 25th of June, 2016, registered for offences punishable
under Sections 420, 120 IPC of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Udyog
Vihar, Distt. Gurgaon (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.
2. On 08.09.2022, the following order was passed :-
"By way of present petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the
petitioner is seeking quashing of case FIR No.212 dated 25th of
June, 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections
420, 120 IPC of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Annexure P-1) at
Police Station Udyog Vihar, District Gurgaon and all
proceedings subsequent thereto, on the basis of compromise
dated 01.04.2018.
1 of 5
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon Annexure P-2,
to submit that the compromise was composite and the
complainant compromised the issue with all the three accused.
So far as the other two accused are concerned, petitions filed by
them seeking quashing on the basis of same compromise stand
allowed vide orders dated 8th of March, 2019 (in CRM-M-
16195-2018) and 22nd of August, 2019 (in CRM-M-19914-
2019), respectively.
He relies upon the statements of the parties recorded in
CRM-M-16195-2018 wherein after recording of statements, the
Trial Court reported that the compromise was genuine and the
parties have amicable settled their dispute.
He further submits that now the trial is fixed for 10th of
October, 2022 qua the petitioner.
In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear
before learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 10th of October,
2022. On their doing so, the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate
shall record their statements and furnish its report to this Court
by the next date of hearing on the following aspects:-
1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR.
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 case or not?
5. The Trial Court/Duty Magistrate is also directed to
record the statement of the Investigating Officer as
to how many victims/complainants are there in the
FIR.
A copy of the report be also sent to the Registrar Judicial
of this Court.
Needless to say that in case for any reason the statements
are not recorded on the aforesaid date, the learned Trial
Court/Duty Magistrate shall be at liberty to call the parties on
any other date but not later than a week thereafter.
2 of 5
List on 15th December, 2022."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from JMIC, Gurugram
dated 24.11.2022 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the
report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"In furtherance of the said directions statements of parties
viz complainant and of accused duly identified were recorded. It
has been verified that both the complainant and the accused have
entered into compromise voluntarily and same is genuine.
Further, the statement of SI Mahesh Kumar 1474 is also
recorded to the effect there is no PO proceeding pending against
the accused in the present case."
4. Respondent No.4 has remained unrepresented. Though, as per
the report, respondent No.4-Ashu Gupta appeared before the Concerned
Magistrate and suffered a statement admitting the fact of there being
compromise between the parties and submitted his no objection in case the
FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the present petitioner
are quashed
5. Similarly Ld. State Counsel has stated no objection in case the
FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.
6. I have heard Ld. 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)
3 of 5
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.
(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
4 of 5
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.
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.212 dated 25th of
June, 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 120 IPC
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Udyog Vihar, Distt. Gurgaon
(Annexure P-1) and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed
qua the petitioner.
December 15, 2022 (PANKAJ JAIN)
Dpr JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
