Punjab-Haryana High Court
Peetambar Singh Rawat And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 2 June, 2022
CRM-M-22223-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
235
CRM-M-22223-2022
Decided on : 02.06.2022
Peetambar Singh Rawat and others
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Daksh Uppal, Advocate for
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 184 dated 25.4.2022 under Sections 338 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code,1860 registered at Police Station Gadpuri, District Palwal
(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising on the basis of the
compromise.
On 23.05.2022, 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.184 dated
25.04.2022 registered under Sections 338, 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station
Gadpuri, District Palwal and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners
1 of 5
has submitted that all the persons concerned are
party to the compromise.
Notice of motion for 02.06.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Vikrant
Pamboo, DAG, Haryana appears and accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr.
Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate appears on behalf of
respondent No.2.
The parties are directed to appear before
the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording
their statements qua compromise within a period
of 7 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
the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Palwal to the Registrar of this Court. The relevant portion of the said
report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"3. Report in original regarding the compromise
between the parties are being sent to the Hon'ble High
Court for kind perusal and further necessary action as
2 of 5
required by the Hon'ble High Court vide order
23.05.2022. The copies regarding the compromise and
the statements of both parties placed on the case file for
further record. It is also pertinent to mention here that
the compromise entered into between the present parties
appears to be genuine and authentic and entered into
with their free will and consent and without any fear or
pressure of any kind from any corner. Moreover, it is
also pertinent to mention here that in the present case
file there are only three accused persons namely
Peetamber Singh, Banpreet Singh and Navteej Singh.
There is no other complainant except Bhupender Singh.
Only affected party left is the State to whom opportunity
was given to say something but to no avail.
The report is hereby submitted for your honours
kind perusal and necessary action as your honour may
deem fit.
Submitted please."
A perusal of the above report would show that it has been
stated that the statements of 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 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.
3 of 5
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 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
portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
4 of 5
"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. 184 dated 25.4.2022 under Sections 338 and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police Station Gadpuri, District
Palwal (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising on the basis
of the compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.
(VIKAS BAHL)
nd
June 2 , 2022 JUDGE
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
