Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrik Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 5 July, 2022
CRM-M-9969-2021 1
268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-9969-2021
Date of decision:05.07.2022
AMRIK SINGH AND ANR
...Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
Present: Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sumit Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,
the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.433 dated 09.11.2020, under Sections
406, 420, 506 of IPC, and, under Section 24 of Immigration Act, lodged at
Police Station Karnal Civil Lines, District Karnal, and, also of all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, hence on the basis of affidavit of compromise
(Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
2. When the instant petition came up before this Court on 03.03.2021,
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 whether
any person(s) has/have been nominated as accused, and, as also whether any
person has been declared a proclaimed offender, and, that whether challan has
been filed. The afore order, makes it apparent that the petitioners had depended,
1 of 6
upon, a compromise/settlement, arrived at, in respect of the FIR (supra) with the
complainant-respondent No.2.
3. The afore made order by this Court on 03.03.2021, 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 petitioners, 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. Moreover, the compromise is stated
by the learned counsel concerned, to be compositely drawn, and, obviously also
thereons exist the signatures of all concerned, in the penal transactions
concerned. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has reported that the
settlement/compromise, depended upon by the petitioners, for seeking quashing
of the FIR (supra), is both voluntary, and, also is free from vices of duress, and,
or of compulsion, being exercised upon each other, besides is genuine.
4. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions
meted to him, has contended before this Court, that the relief, as claimed by the
petitioners, in the petition, cannot be granted, as one of the offences constituted
against the accused-petitioners, inasmuch as, the one under Section 24 of
Immigration Act, is non-compoundable.
5. 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 petitioners, that though the investigating officer has preferred a report
2 of 6
under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concerned, but the
charges have not yet been framed.
6. The effect of the afore statement, as made with extreme vehemence
by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and, also the effect of the statement
made by the learned counsel appearing for the State, 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, being enjoined to become tested vis-a-vis the facts in hand, for apposite
application thereons. 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 offences
sought to be quashed, through the 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
3 of 6
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).
7. 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 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
accordance 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
4 of 6
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 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."
8. Since the offence under Section 24 of Immigration Act, for reasons
(supra), does not, prima facie, appear to be so grave and nor is 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,
5 of 6
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. In aftermath when rather thereupons, the
chances of the petitioners 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.
9. 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.
10. There is merit in the petition, and, the same is allowed.
Consequently, after accepting the report of the learned Magistrate concerned,
this Court proceeds to quash the FIR (supra).
11. Consequently, the FIR (supra), and, also all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
05.07.2022 JUDGE
Ithlesh
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
