Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 26 July, 2022
CRM M-24511 of 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
288 CRM M-24511 of 2022
Date of Decision: July 26, 2022
Surinder Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana & another ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present : Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.
Ms. Rajni Bala Rohilla, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing
of FIR No.173 dated 17.04.2019 registered under Sections 186/353/506
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Shahabad, District
Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise.
On 31.05.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following
order:-
"This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No.173 dated 17.04.2019 registered under
Sections 186, 353, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police
Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and all
the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all
the persons concerned are party to the compromise.
1 of 5
Notice of motion for 26.07.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG,
Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-
State and Ms. Rajni Bala Rohilla, 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 six weeks.
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 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Shahabad. The
relevant portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"As per the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court, following information
are as under :-
(i) There is one complainant namely Sunil Kumar and
there is one accused namely Surinder Singh
arrayed in the FIR.
(ii)The accused has not been declared proclaimed
offender in the present FIR.
2 of 5
(iii)The compromise is genuine and is found valid,
voluntary, out of free will of the parties and without
any influence and coercion.
(iv)The accused is not involved in any other FIR as per
the statement of Investigating Officer.
(v) There is only one victim/complainant in the present
FIR as per the statement of Investigating Officer.
Photocopies of statement of complainant/victim Sunil
Kumar and separate statement of accused Surinder
Singh as well as separate statement of investigating
officer SI Krishan Lal, No.131-A, P.S. Sector-9,
Ambala City and compromise Ex.P1 are attached with
this report. This is for your kind information and
necessary action, please.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- (Ravish Kaushik)
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,
Shahabad. UID No.HR0358"
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 petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was not declared proclaimed offender in the present case and
3 of 5
there are no other cases pending against the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the State, as per instructions has stated that these facts are
correct.
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 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", 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
4 of 5
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 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.173 dated 17.04.2019 registered under Sections
186, 353, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Shahabad,
District Kurukshetra and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
on the basis of compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioner.
July 26, 2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
