Aasif And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6126 P&H

CRM-M-18506-2022                                             -1-

276
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRM-M-18506-2022
                                                 Date of decision : 05.07.2022

Aasif and others

                                                                     ...Petitioners

                                        Versus

State of Haryana and another

                                                                   ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:    Mr. Jagmohan Pundir, Advocate for
            Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Mr. G.S. Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Vikramjit Singh, 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.19 dated 02.02.2021 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 325 and 308 of IPC have been

added later on) at Police Station Jathlana, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure

P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of

compromise.

On 04.05.2022, this Court had passed the following order:-

"This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.19 dated 02.02.2021 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 325 and 308 of IPC have been added later on) at

1 of 5

Police Station Jathlana, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the persons concerned are party to the compromise.

Notice of motion for 05.07.2022.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Advocate 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 one month.

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. "

In pursuance of the abovesaid order, a report has been

submitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.

The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"The information as required by the Hon'ble High Court is as under:

1. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, there are seven accused in present F.I.R no.19 dt.02.02.2021, under

2 of 5

Section 148, 149, 323, 325, 341 IPC and their statement regarding the compromise has been recorded.

2. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, namely, Samey Singh, no.150/YNR, P.S.Jathlana District Yamuna Nagar, all the accused involved in the present FLR have not been declared Proclaimed Offender in this case.

3. The compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

4. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, all the seven accused are not involved in any other case.

5. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one victim/complainant, namely, Khalil.

Thanking you.

Yours faithfully.

Sd/- (Nimit Kumar) Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.

UID No.HR0406"

A perusal of the said report would show that the compromise

has been found to be genuine, without any pressure or undue influence. It

has been stated that the statements of the complainant as well as the accused

have been recorded in the case and both have stated that the matter has been

compromised and they have no objection in case the FIR is quashed. It is

further stated that the statement of the complainant has been made

voluntarily without any fear, coercion or pressure.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

petitioners were not declared proclaimed offender in the present case and

there are no other cases pending against the petitioners. Learned counsel for

the State, as per instructions has stated that these facts are correct.

3 of 5

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 petitioners

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", reported as 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", reported as 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:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion

4 of 5

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"

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is

allowed and FIR No.19 dated 02.02.2021 registered under Sections 148,

149, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 325 and 308 of IPC

have been added later on) at Police Station Jathlana, District Yamuna Nagar

(Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the

basis of compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand

disposed of in view of the abovesaid judgment.

05.07.2022                                            (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan                                                    JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                5 of 5