Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 June, 2022
CRM-M-19998-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
258
CRM-M-19998-2022
Decided on : 01.06.2022
Vinod and others
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Sushil K. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 to 4.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 405 dated 25.08.2019 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 354-A, 365,
379-A and 452 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (Sections 354-A, 379-A and
452 IPC were deleted and Sections 341 and 367 IPC were added later on)
registered at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani (Annexure P-1) and
all subsequent proceedings arising on the basis of the compromise.
On 11.05.2022, 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.405 dated
25.08.2019 registered under Sections 148, 149,
323, 354-A, 365, 379-A and 452 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 354-A and 379-A and
452 have been deleted and Sections 341 and 367
IPC have been added later on) at Police Station
1 of 6
Tosham, District Bhiwani 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.
Notice of motion for 30.05.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Anmol Malik,
DAG, Haryana appears and accepts notice on
behalf of respondent-State and Mr. Vijay Kumar,
Advocate appears on behalf of respondents Nos.2
to 4.
The parties are directed to appear before
the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording
their statements qua compromise within a period
of 10 days.
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
2 of 6
the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani to the Registrar General of this
Court. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"I have the honour to submit that in
compliance of order dated 11.05.2022 in
aforementioned CRM-M-19998-2022 passed by
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl, Judge Punjab
and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, SI Suresh
Kumar, who is Investigating Officer of case,
complainant Shakuntala and injured Sanjay and
Babribhan as well as accused persons have
appeared before undersigned. The undersigned
has personally interacted with parties and parties
have shown their willingness to compromise the
matter. After ensuring that the compromise is
voluntarily and free from coercion and force,
separate statements of parties qua compromise
are recorded. Original statements of the parties
are enclosed herewith.
The report as desired is following:
i) The FIR was registered against six persons (one
was juvenile) but challan is submitted against
them namely Pardeep @ Maharaj, Ram Bhagat,
Vinod, Ranbir @ Ranvir Singh and Pardeep son
of Balbir and they (except child in conflict with
law Karan) have appeared and made statement as
detailed above whereas Enquiry against child in
conflict with law has already been disposed of by
leamed Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice
Board, Bhiwani as per copy of order dated
10.05.2022.
ii) No accused is proclaimed offender in the
present case.
3 of 6
iii) In the considered opinion of this court, the
compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any
coercion or undue influence.
iv) Only one criminal case against accused
Ranbir @ Ranvir Singh bearing FIR
No.1026/2017 under Section 25 of Armis Act PS
Sadar, Kamal, is pending in District Courts,
Kamal in the court of learned ACJM, Kamal for
06.06.2022.
Only one criminal case against accused Pardeep
son of Balbir bearing FIR No.295/2016 under
Section 379/420/120B IPC and under Section 11
of Animal Cruelty Act PS Thanesar, Kurukshetra,
is pending in District Courts, Kurukshetra in the
court of Ms. Monika Khanagwal, Ld. JMIC,
Kurukshetra for 08.06.2022.
The report is submitted for your honour's
kind information and necessary action."
A perusal of the above report would show that it has been
stated that the statements of Complainant/victims 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 submitted that none of
the petitioners were declared proclaimed offender in the present case.
Learned counsel for the State, as per instructions, has stated
4 of 6
that the abovesaid fact is correct.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has reiterated the
factum of compromise and has prayed for quashing of FIR on the basis of
the same.
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
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
5 of 6
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. 405 dated 25.08.2019 under Sections 148, 149,
323, 354-A, 365, 379-A and 452 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (Sections
354-A, 379-A and 452 IPC were deleted and Sections 341 and 367 IPC
were added later on) registered at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani
(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising on the basis of the
compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.
(VIKAS BAHL)
st
June 1 , 2022 JUDGE
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
