Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 December, 2022
CRM-M-56152-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-56152-2022
Date of decision:21.12.2022
Sahil
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaglan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
of FIR No.90 dated 27.02.2022 registered under Section 379-A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Model Town, District Panipat
(Annexure `A') along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
on the basis of compromise.
On 05.12.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following
order:-
"This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No.90 dated 27.02.2022 registered under
Section 379-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police
Station Model Town, District Panipat and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all
the persons concerned are party to the compromise.
Notice of motion for 21.12.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG,
Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent-State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate
1 of 4
appears on behalf of respondent No.2.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa
Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua
compromise within a period of 10 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.
14.11.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE"
In pursuance of the said order, a report has been submitted by
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Panipat. The relevant portion of the
said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"1. Only one person namely Sahil son of Sh. Khushi Ram,
resident of village Binjhol, Tehsil and District Panipat
has been arrayed as accused in the present case.
2. None of the accused is a proclaimed offender.
3. From the statement of the complainant Mukesh Saini,
the compromise appears to be a genuine, voluntary and
without any coercion or undue influence.
4. The accused person is not involved in any other FIR.
5. There is only one victim/complainant in the present
FIR."
A perusal of the above said report would show that the
petitioner and respondent No.2 have appeared and suffered statements with
respect to the compromise, which have been found to be voluntary, genuine,
and out of free will.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner was not declared proclaimed offender in the present case.
Learned State counsel has stated that he has no objection in
2 of 4
case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioner.
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 petitioner
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
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", 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", 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:-
3 of 4
"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."
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition is
allowed and FIR No.90 dated 27.02.2022 registered under Section 379-A of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Model Town, District Panipat
(Annexure `A') along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
on the basis of compromise, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.
(VIKAS BAHL)
21.12.2022 JUDGE
Ishwar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
