Tejinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 7163 P&H

CRM-M No. 3593 of 2022                                                      -1-

           In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                                            CRM-M No. 3593 of 2022 (O&M)
                                            Date of Decision: 19.7.2022

Tejinder Singh and others                                        ......Petitioners


                                          Versus

State of Haryana and others                                      ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Present:       Mr. Vikas Jhamb, Advocate for
               Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

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

       Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocate
       for respondents No. 2 to 5.
                  ****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

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

petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 782 dated 14.11.2021, registered at Police

Station Indri, District Karnal, constituting therein offences, under Sections 148,

149, 323, 452, 379-B, 506, 307 IPC, and, under Section 25 of the Arms Act,

(Sections 452, and, 307 IPC were deleted later on) and, also of all the

consequent proceedings arising therefrom, hence on the basis of compromise

dated 12.1.2022 (Annexure P-2), arrived at between the parties.

2. When the instant petition came up before this Court on 4.2.2022,

an order was made upon the learned Magistrate concerned, to make a report to

this Court, with respect to the genuineness of the compromise, and, as also:-

1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in FIR;

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 case 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.

1 of 6

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

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

(supra) with the complainant-respondents.

4. The afore made order by this Court on 4.2.2022, 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 respondents No. 2 to 5, 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

petitioners, for seeking quashing of the FIR (supra), is both voluntary, and,

genuine.

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

counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 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 contended before this Court, that the relief, as claimed by the petitioners, in

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

petitioners, inasmuch as those, under Sections 148, and, 149 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 petitioners, that the investigations into the petition

FIR, are still underway, and, that a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., has yet not

2 of 6

been filed before the learned trial Magistrate concerned.

8. 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 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 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

3 of 6

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 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

4 of 6

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."

10. Since the offences under Sections 148, and, 149 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 offences are 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 the report under Section 173

Cr.P.C., has yet not been filed, before the learned Magistrate concerned. 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 5 of 6

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.

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

this Court proceeds to quash the FIR (supra).

13. Accordingly, FIR No. 782 dated 14.11.2021, registered at Police

Station Indri, District Karnal, constituting therein offences, under Sections 148,

149, 323, 452, 379-B, 506, 307 IPC, and, under Section 25 of the Arms Act,

(Sections 452, and, 307 IPC were deleted later on), and, also all the

consequential proceedings, hence arising therefrom, are quashed qua the

petitioners.

                                                  (SURESHWAR THAKUR)
                                                        JUDGE
July 19, 2022
Gurpreet

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




                                  6 of 6