Arshad Khan And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7956 P&H

       CRM-M-33051-2020                                             1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH
283
                                               CRM-M-33051-2020
                                               Decided on : 28.07.2022
Arshad Khan and others
                                                               . . . Petitioners
                                 Versus
State of Haryana and another
                                                             . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Kunwar Rajan, Advocate
         for the petitioners.
            Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Amanpreet Singh, Advocate
            for respondent No. 2.

                                  ****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)

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

FIR No. 113 dated 26.07.2020 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324 and

326 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police Station Dhauj,

District Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings

arising on the basis of the compromise.

On 25.03.2021, a coordinate Bench of this Court was

pleased to pass the following order:-

"The Court has been convened through video conferencing due to Covid-19 pandemic.

Counsel representing respondent No.2 submits that the statement of complainant- respondent No.2 could not be recorded due to spread of contagion. He prays for fixing of the another date for recording the said purpose.

                                Let     the     complainant-respondent    No.2




                                      1 of 5

appear before the trial Court/Duty Magistrate on 02.04.2021 for recording his statement.

List on 05.08.2021 to await the report of the trial Court in pursuance of order dated 13.01.2021.

Sd/-

                         25.03.2021                   (SUVIR SEHGAL)
                                                         JUDGE"

In pursuance of the said order, a report has been submitted

by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad to the Registrar General

of this Court. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

"Vide order dated 25.03.2021, passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the complainant in the present case was directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of his statement and trial Court was directed to record the statement of the complainant regarding compromise.

                                On     02.04.2021,    complainant         Mumtaj
                         appeared      for    recording   the    statement    of

compromise. Statement of complainant Mumtaj was recorded with regard to compromise and he is duly identified by his counsel Shri Sagar Upadhyay, Advocate. There is only one complainant/victim Mumtaj.

Statements of the complainant in original and photocopy of his identity card are enclosed herewith.

Submitted please."

A perusal of the file would show that on 19.02.2021, the

accused persons have appeared before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

2 of 5

Faridabad for recording their statements but the complainant had not

appeared and it was found that there was only one complainant namely

Mumtaj and it is subsequently on 02.04.2021, the said Mumtaj also

appeared and gave statement in support of the compromise.

A perusal of the above report would show that it has been

stated that the statements of the complainant as well as the petitioners

have been recorded in the case and they 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 further submitted that

none of the petitioners were declared proclaimed offender in the present

case and are not involved in any other case.

Learned counsel for the State, as per instructions, has stated

that the abovesaid 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

as well reply submitted on behalf of the State, this Court finds that the

matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the

complainant and the present FIR having been compromised deserves to be

3 of 5

quashed. 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 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"

4 of 5

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition

is allowed and FIR No. 113 dated 26.07.2020 under Sections 148, 149,

323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police

Station Dhauj, District Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent

proceedings arising on the basis of the compromise, are ordered to be

quashed, qua the petitioners.

                                                     (VIKAS BAHL)
28.07.2022                                              JUDGE
Mehak
                      Whether reasoned/speaking?         Yes/No
                      Whether reportable?                Yes/No




                                            5 of 5