Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Verma @ Ajay vs State Of Haryana And Another on 11 March, 2022
CRM-M-41287-2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(229) CRM-M-41287-2019
Date of Decision: 11.03.2022
Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Verma @ Ajay --Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & another --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:- Ms. Monika, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Kashyap, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Amit Khari, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via Webex
facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
for quashing of FIR No.119, dated 26.12.2015, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506
and 34 of IPC (Section 34 IPC deleted during framing of charge), registered at
Police Station Women Cell, Sonipat along with subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated 10.09.2019 (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 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.
1 of 5
This Court vide order dated 25.02.2020 directed the parties to
appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements,
as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was also
directed to send its report.
In pursuance of the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Sonipat sent its report dated 23.03.2020 to this Court. With the report learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonipat has also annexed the original statement
of complainant-Manju Rani; statement of accused/petitioner namely, Ajay
Kumar and SI Ramesh Chander recorded on 20.03.2020. On the basis of the
statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonipat has concluded in
the report that the parties have entered into a compromise out of their free
will and without any pressure or coercion and accused was not declared
proclaimed offender in this case. He has further submitted that initially there
were eight accused namely, Ajay, Tilak Chand, Anand, Ashok, Ompati,
Geeta, Anita and Lalita.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonipat.
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
and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the
continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The
2 of 5
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 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,
3 of 5
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 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
4 of 5
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.119, dated 26.12.2015, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 34 of IPC
(Section 34 IPC deleted during framing of charge), registered at Police Station
Women Cell, Sonipat and all the subsequent 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 and their statements recorded before the Court below.
Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
11.03.2022 JUDGE
m.sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
