Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gulshan @ Gaje Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 December, 2022
CRM-M-36831-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
269
CRM-M-36831-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.12.2022
GULSHAN @ GAJE SINGH
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate
for the complainant.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing of FIR No.216 dated 21.05.2016 registered Sections 148, 149, 452, 323,
325, 307 and 506 of the IPC (Sections 325, 307 of the IPC added later on) at
Police Station Khedki Daula, District Gurugram and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, in view of the compromise deed dated 10.08.2022,
Annexure P-2 reached between the parties.
Heard.
In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon'ble
The Supreme Court of India observed that even though the provisions of Section
320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did
1 of 5
CRM-M-36831-2022 (O&M) -2-
not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hon'ble The Apex Court
laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR
becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of
power of quashing.
In the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012
(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India 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 paras read thus:-
"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"
61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it
would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue
with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal
proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer
to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings."
Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of Yogendra Yadav
v State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653, held that "now, the question before
this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326
and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences
which are non compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw
the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said
2 of 5
CRM-M-36831-2022 (O&M) -3-
provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(4)
R.C.R.(Criminal) 543 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 549 : (2012)10
SCC 303). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal
proceeding in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code having regard
to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has
no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the
High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on
facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude,
grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the
proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences
cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences
are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High
Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore,
do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such
proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would
secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the
prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would
be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct
restoration of peace."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is
21 years old boy, was attributed injury to the son of the complainant and to
injured Mohit, who is brother of the complainant on their hands and legs. He
submits that the injury attracting 307 IPC has been attributed to co-accused
Jitender, who is not the petitioner in the present case. Petitioner is not involved in
any other case. He further submits that this is a case of version and cross-version
3 of 5
CRM-M-36831-2022 (O&M) -4-
and compromise has been effected between the parties in the present FIR as well
as in the cross-version, whereby FIR No.222 was lodged and a petition for
quashing of the said FIR on the basis of compromise bearing CRM-M-41854-
2022 has been filed which is pending for 13.03.2023 and statements have also
been recorded before the Juvenile Justice Board.
Adverting to the facts, parties in this case were directed to appear
before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements in the
context of genuineness of the compromise.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 20.12.2022 of Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram has been received, which is taken
on record. Learned Magistrate has reported that the compromise effected between
the parties is voluntary, without any pressure or inducement, accused- petitioner
has never been declared as proclaimed offender and he is not involved in any
other case. The complainant has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed qua the petitioner(s).
In view of the judgments referred to above, perusing the report of the
trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioner(s) and the
complainant(s), this Court finds that compounding the offences will accord a
quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to
bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served
in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the
criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed.
Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and FFIR No.216 dated
21.05.2016 registered Sections 148, 149, 452, 323, 325, 307 and 506 of the IPC
(Sections 325, 307 of the IPC added later on) at Police Station Khedki Daula,
4 of 5
CRM-M-36831-2022 (O&M) -5-
District Gurugram and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are
quashed qua the petitioner.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
December 21, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
