Abhishek vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7060 P&H

CRM-M-11218-2021                                                    1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH
274
                                                CRM-M-11218-2021
                                                Decided on : 18.07.2022

Abhishek
                                                               . . . Petitioner
                                  Versus
State of Haryana and another
                                                            . . . Respondents

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Ms. Ishita Jain, Advocate for
         Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

            Mr. Bhupender Singh, DAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Arun Dulgach, Advocate
            for respondent No. 2-complainant.

                                   ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of

FIR No. 456 dated 25.07.2020 under Section 379-B of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, District

Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom on the basis of the compromise.

When the matter came up before this Court on 10.05.2022,

the following order was passed:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner as well respondent No. 2 have jointly submitted that in the present case, there are 3 accused but the compromise has been effected with only one accused i.e. the present petitioner and the present case is a case of partial compromise and has relied upon the judgment of the

1 of 5

Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported as 2012 (12) SCC 401, to contend that even in case of a partial compromise, the FIR can be quashed qua the accused with whom the compromise has been effected.

Adjourned to 18.07.2022.

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 said order, a report has been submitted

by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri to the

Registrar General of this Court. The relevant portion of the said report

is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"2. It is further reported, as per the statement of the Investigating Officer, that three accused persons were found involved in the present case, Out of three accused persons, the challan of two accused persons 1.e. Amarjeet Singh alias Monku and Sumer Singh alias Rinku has been presented before the Court and the same

2 of 5

is pending before the Court of Shri Amarinder Sharma, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, but till yet the arrest of accused Abhishek could not he effected.

3. It is also reported, as per the statement of the Investigating Officer, that accused persons have not been declared Proclaimed Offender/Person by any Court of Law in this case.

4. It is also reported, as per the statement of the Investigating Officer, that no other criminal case is pending against accused Abhishek. but a criminal case bearing FIR No.458 of 2020, under Sections 323, 325, 506, 34 of IPC, Police station City Yamuna Nagar is pending against accused Amarjeet.

5. It is also reported, as per the statement of the Investigating Officer, that in this case, there is only one victim/complainant namely Junaid Khan. Statement of Investigating Officer, namely SI Lakhwinder Masih, is Annexure-IV (Annexed herewith in original).

Hence, this report.

Submitted please."

A perusal of the said report would show that 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. As per the said report, it

has been observed that the petitioner was never declared as proclaimed

offenders in the present case.

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 bring out peace and amity between the

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

petitioner 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", 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", 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 can be summarised thus: the power of the

4 of 5

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. 456 dated 25.07.2020 under Section 379-B of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station City Yamuna

Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise, are

ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioner.

                                                     (VIKAS BAHL)
                                                        JUDGE
July 18th 2022
Mehak

                      Whether reasoned/speaking?         Yes/No
                      Whether reportable?                Yes/No




                                            5 of 5