Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 5 January, 2022
CRM-M-19172-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-19172-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.01.2022
Raj Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.369 dated
04.11.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506, 34 of
the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sadar
Sirsa and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
During pendency of the present petition, the case was referred to
the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court with consent of
respondent No.2.
Now a settlement has been arrived at between petitioner Raj
Kumar and complainant Surender Kumar before the Mediation and
1 of 4
Conciliation Centre of this Court on 24.09.2021, which is duly signed by
both of them. As per Clause 6 of the settlement, both the parties have agreed
to settle the dispute for a sum of Rs.1.55 lac in addition to the amount
already given and the entire amount stands paid to respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no other criminal
case is pending between the parties and the petitioner is not a proclaimed
offender.
Learned State counsel has not disputed the fact that the parties
have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that this
compromise is only with petitioner Raj Kumar.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
file.
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 the 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 feel that the same was 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, has held as under:-
"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
2 of 4
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 what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or
complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and
victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even
though the victim or victim's family and the offender have
settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and
have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal
cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour
stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal
in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In
this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between
3 of 4
the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused
to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would
be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full
and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding
would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement
and compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within
its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided
to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal
proceedings to continue.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, present
petition is allowed and FIR No.369 dated 04.11.2020 under Sections 406,
420, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Sirsa and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the
petitioner.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
05.01.2022 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
