Gulab Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5838 P&H

                                                                        -1-
CRM-M-6034-2020


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                            CRM-M-6034-2020
                                            Date of decision: 01.06.2022

Gulab Singh

                                                              ...Petitioner
                                     Versus

State of Haryana and another

                                                          .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:-     Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, AAG Haryana.

              None for respondent No.2.

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)

This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.255 dated

05.07.2014, registered at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District

Kurukshetra, under Sections 452, 323 and 506 IPC, and all the subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom, including the judgment of conviction dated

07.06.2016 and the order of sentence dated 09.06.2016 passed by learned

Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, on the basis of the

compromise dated 27.01.2020, arrived at between the parties.

Copy of reply dated 01.06.2020, by way of affidavit of the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, filed in the Registry, is

taken on record.

Vide order dated 11.02.2020 passed by this Court, the

Appellate Court had been directed to record the statements of the parties

1 of 4

CRM-M-6034-2020

with regard to the genuineness and authenticity of the compromise.

In compliance thereof, learned Addl. Sessions Judge,

Kurukshetra, has submitted a report, vide letter dated 24.02.2020, which

indicates that the parties had appeared before him and got recorded their

respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise. As per

the report, the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and

without any pressure or coercion from any corner.

The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh

vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs.

State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that

compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during

proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and

in case of involving non-compoundable offence.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus

State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held as

under:-

"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. 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

2 of 4

CRM-M-6034-2020

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 pre-dominatingly 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 personnel 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."

The same view has also been reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex

Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and

another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have

3 of 4

CRM-M-6034-2020

decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the

criminal proceedings to continue.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.255 dated

05.07.2014, registered at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District

Kurukshetra, under Sections 452, 323 and 506 IPC, and all the subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom, including the judgment of conviction dated

07.06.2016 and the order of sentence dated 09.06.2016 passed by learned

Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, are quashed qua the

petitioner on the basis of compromise dated 27.01.2020 (Annexure P-4),

subject to him depositing the costs of Rs.10,000/- with the Poor Patients'

Welfare Fund, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research

(PGIMER), Chandigarh.

Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the

terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.

01.06.2022                                     (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar                                        JUDGE

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




                                      4 of 4