Kaptan Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5841 P&H

                                                                          -1-
CRM-M-7770-2022


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH
(247)
                                                         CRM-M-7770-2022.
                                                Date of Decision:-01.06.2022.

Kaptan Singh and others

                                                              ......Petitioners

                                     Versus
State of Haryana and another
                                                             ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

                    ****

Present:      Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners.

              Mr. Kirpal Singh, AAG, Haryana.

              Mr. Shiv Kumar Rana, Advocate for
              Mr. Baljeet Nain, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                    ****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

praying for quashing of FIR No.26, dated 20.02.2021, under Sections 498-

A, 323, 406, 377 and 506 of IPC, registered at Women Police Station,

Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1), along with

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise

dated 21.02.2022 (Annexure P-2).

FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent

No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the

intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and

they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from compromise. On

the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power

1 of 6

CRM-M-7770-2022

of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a

futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in

question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be

quashed in the interest of justice.

This Court vide order dated 23.02.2022 directed the parties to

appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording their statements, as

contended before the Court, and the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was also

directed to send its report.

In pursuance of the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Yamuna Nagar, has sent her report dated 11.04.2022 to this Court. With the

report learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar, has also

annexed the statement of complainant-Sushma recorded on 07.04.2022;

statements of accused/petitioners, namely, Kaptan Singh, Premo Devi and

Ishwar Singh recorded on 07.04.2022; and statement of IO HC Amita

recorded on 07.04.2022. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar, has concluded in the report that the

parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily and out of their free will

and none of the accused was declared proclaimed offender in this case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record

and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar.

A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would

show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to

give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process

of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C.

is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for

compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.

2 of 6

CRM-M-7770-2022

Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed

and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the

continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh

and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466;

B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4

Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of

Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3)

RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and

settled the law.

Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of

Punjab and another, (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt

with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing

of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para

61 of the judgment reads as under:-

"61. 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

3 of 6

CRM-M-7770-2022

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 pre-dominatingly civil

flavour stand on a 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, the

High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,

because of the compromise between the offender and the

victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and

continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to

4 of 6

CRM-M-7770-2022

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 the

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 the affirmative, the High

Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal

proceeding."

Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora

of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have

entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be

merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the

prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of

justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Court is conscious of the fact that Section 377 IPC comes

in the ambit of heinous and non-compoundable offences. But in the peculiar

facts and circumstances and in the larger interest of both the parties and to

secure the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to use its

discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in favour of the parties.

As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls

5 of 6

CRM-M-7770-2022

within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence,

FIR No.26, dated 20.02.2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 377 and 506

of IPC, registered at Women Police Station, Yamuna Nagar, District

Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1), along with consequential proceedings

arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of

compromise. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the

terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded

before the Court below.

Petition stands allowed.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE June 01, 2022.

sandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned:-                                  Yes/No
Whether Reportable:-                                         Yes/No




                                 6 of 6