Joga Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6024 P&H

CRM-M No. 1366 of 2020                                                      -1-

           In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                                                   CRM-M No. 1366 of 2020
                                                   Date of Decision: 04.7.2022

Joga Singh                                                         ......Petitioner

                                          Versus

State of Haryana and another                                      ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Present:       Mr. Pawan Attri, Advocate
               for the petitioner.

               Mr. Sumit Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

               Ms. Pinki Mehla, Advocate for
               Mr. Fateh Saini, Advocate
               for respondent No. 2.
                          ****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition, cast under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 106 dated 26.6.2019, registered at

Police Station Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra, initially constituting therein

an offence under Section 379-A IPC, whereas, upon, presentation of

challan, offences under Sections 332, 353, 186 IPC, rather became

embodied thereins, and, also seeks quashing of all the consequent

proceedings arising therefrom, hence on the basis of compromise dated

14.12.2019 (Annexure P-2), arrived at between the parties.

2. When the instant petition came up before this Court on

09.4.2021, an order was made upon the learned Magistrate concerned, to

make a report to this Court, with respect to the genuineness of the

compromise, as also with respect to the following:-

"(1) The name of the complainant and all accused arrayed in the FIR; whether all of them have appeared and made their respective statements in support of the compromise 1 of 7

so effected between them;

(2) Whether any of the accused has been declared a proclaimed offender;

              (3)     The stage of trial/proceedings;
              (4)     If the compromise so arrived at between the parties is
                      genuine, voluntarily and out of free will."

3. The afore order, makes it apparent that the petitioner had

depended, upon, a compromise/settlement, arrived at, in respect of the FIR

(supra) with the complainant-respondent.

4. The afore made order by this Court on 09.4.2021, has been

complied with by the learned Magistrate concerned, and, the elicited report

has been placed on record. A perusal of the report, transmitted to this

Court, by the learned Magistrate concerned, reveals that the

settlement/compromise, arrived at inter se the petitioner, and, the

respondent No. 2, is a sequel of both, being ad idem qua it, besides the

compromise/settlement being a sequel of no pressure or coercion, being

exercised upon each other. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has reported

that the settlement/compromise, depended upon by the petitioner, for

seeking quashing of the FIR (supra), is both voluntary, and, genuine.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned

counsel for respondents No. 2 have stated at the bar, that all concerned have

signed the compromise deed.

6. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana,

has submitted that though, in the petition FIR, an offence under Section

379-A IPC has been embodied, but he further submits that the investigating

officer concerned, after making investigations into the present FIR, chose to

institute an affirmative report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., with offences

embodied thereins under Sections 332, 353, and, under Section 186 of the

IPC. He further submits that the relief, as claimed by the petitioner, in the

2 of 7

petition, cannot be granted, as the offences constituted against the accused-

petitioner, under Sections 332, 353, and, under Section 186 IPC, are non-

compoundable.

7. However for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore

prayer, as made by the learned State counsel, cannot be accepted by this

Court. The pre-eminent reason for dispelling the vigour of afore made

argument, is rested, upon the factum of also a statement, being made before

this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that though, the relevant

charges have been framed by the learned trial Court, yet the recording of the

prosecution evidence has not commenced, besides also from the statement

made before this Court by the learned State counsel, that only a wrangle

occurred amongst the petitioner and the private respondent, and, that

obviously no public money became snatched by the petitioner from the

private respondent.

8. The effect of the afore statement, as made with extreme

vehemence by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and, also the effect of

the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the State of

Haryana, is that the relevant parameters as encapsulated in a verdict of the

Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in case titled as, Gian Singh versus State of

Punjab and another 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, inasmuch as a

postulate/occurring therein, that the inherent power under Section 482

Cr.P.C., as vested in the High Court, for quashing of criminal proceedings,

as/of FIR or complaint, through recourse being made to the provisions of

Section 482 Cr.P.C rather being distinct and different from the power given

to a criminal Court, hence for compounding the relevant offence(s), and, it

being enjoined to become tested vis-a-vis the facts in hand, for apposite

3 of 7

application thereon. However, it has also been held therein, the afore power

vested in the High Court, is of the widest plenitude, with no statutory

limitation, being placed thereon, yet it has to be exercised to secure the ends

of justice, and, to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. Though no

straightjacket formula, has been contemplated therein, for recourse being

made to the mandate of Section 482 Cr.P.C., hence for quashing of an FIR,

or criminal proceedings or complaint, yet the essential rubric viz-a-viz its

valid exercising, is comprised in the principle, that if the accused and the

complainant rather enter into a valid ad idem settlement, and, when

thereupon the conviction of the accused becomes remote and bleak.

Consequently, it has been mandated, that unless the offence sought to be

quashed, through exercising of the power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

are not serious and heinous, inasmuch as the afore, do not embody offences

appertaining to murder, rape, dacoity etc., and, or when the offences are in

relation to special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences

committed by public servants, while working in that capacity, thereupon it

can be permissibly exercised. However, upon evident existences of

embargos (supra), spelt in the verdict (supra), thereupon, the High Courts

are barred, through recoursing the mandate of Section 482 Cr.P.C., hence, to

quash the FIR or quash the criminal proceedings appertaining to

serious/heinous offences (supra).

9. It is apt to extract the relevant paragraph of the verdict made by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra).

"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

4 of 7

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 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

5 of 7

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."

10. Since the offences under Sections 332, 353, and, 186 IPC do

not, prima facie, appear to be so grave and nor are so heinous, so as to

attract the rigour of the embargo (supra) foisted upon the High Court in

verdict (supra). Therefore, the settlement/compromise, as validly entered

into, enjoins its being revered. Consequently, even if the afore offence is

non-compoundable, this Court does not deem it fit to accept the

contention(s) of the learned State counsel, that this Court, may not through

recoursing the mandate of Section 482 Cr.P.C., quash the FIR, especially

when after filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the

prosecution evidence has not commenced. In aftermath when rather

thereupons, the chances of the petitioner being convicted are remote as well

as bleak. In sequel, the ordering for the trial of the accused, would result in

harassment and humiliation, being caused to the accused, besides would

defeat the ends of justice.

11. Furthermore, an immense support to the afore made view, is

also derived from the judgment rendered by this Court in case titled as

Vinod @ Boda and others versus State of Haryana and another 2017(1)

R.C.R. (Criminal) 571, wherein also, the above view has been reiterated.

12. There is merit in the petition, and, the same is allowed.

6 of 7

Consequently, after accepting the report of the learned Magistrate concerned,

this Court proceeds to quash the FIR (supra).

13. Accordingly, FIR No. 106 dated 26.6.2019, registered at Police

Station Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra, constituting therein offence, under

Section 379-A IPC, whereas, upon presentation of challan, offences under

Sections 332, 353, 186 IPC, rather became embodied, and, also all the

consequential proceedings, hence arising therefrom, are quashed qua the

petitioner.

                                                 (SURESHWAR THAKUR)
                                                       JUDGE
July 04, 2022
Gurpreet

Whether speaking/reasoned          :      Yes/No
Whether reportable                 :      Yes/No




                                 7 of 7