Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankur Kansal vs State Of Haryana And Another on 1 June, 2022
-1-
CRM-M-7749-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(246)
CRM-M-7749-2022.
Date of Decision:-01.06.2022.
Ankur Kansal
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
****
Present: Mr. DPS Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kirpal Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. R.S. Bajwa, Advocate for
Mr. G.S. Goraya, 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.0549, dated 28.08.2020, under Sections 34,
354-A, 406, 498-A and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Hisar City,
District Hisar (Annexure P-1), along with consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 18.02.2022 (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 petitioner is invoking the inherent power
of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a
1 of 6
CRM-M-7749-2022
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 Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hisar, sent her report dated 31.03.2022 to this Court. With the report
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, has also annexed the statement of
complainant-Ruchika Kansal recorded on 28.03.2022; statement of
accused/petitioner namely, Ankur Kansal recorded on 28.03.2022; and
statement of IO ASI Ravinder recorded on 28.03.2022. On the basis of the
statements, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, has concluded in the
report that the parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily and out
of their free will and the accused was never declared as proclaimed
offender in this case.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar.
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.
Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed
2 of 6
CRM-M-7749-2022
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
victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and
3 of 6
CRM-M-7749-2022
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
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
4 of 6
CRM-M-7749-2022
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 petitioner 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.
As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls
within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence,
FIR No.0549, dated 28.08.2020, under Sections 34, 354-A, 406, 498-A and
506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Hisar City, District Hisar (Annexure
P-1), along with consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed
qua the petitioner on the basis of compromise. Needless to say that the
parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise
5 of 6
CRM-M-7749-2022
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
