Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjeet Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 16 March, 2022
CRM-M-5980-2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
239
CRM-M- 5980-2020
Decided on : 16.03.2022
Paramjeet Singh and another
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Raman Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 211 dated 20.06.2016 under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police Station Farakpur, District
Yamunanagar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the
basis of the compromise.
When the matter came up before a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court on 11.02.2020, the following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to
Annexure P-2 to contend that a compromise has been
effected between the parties and prays for quashing of
FIR No.211 dated 20.06.2016 (Annexure P-1) under
1 of 5
Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC registered at Police
Station Farakpur, District Yamunanagar on the basis of
compromise dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion for 28.04.2020.
At the asking of the Court, Mr. Baljinder Singh
Virk, DAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the
State. Let the copy of the petition be handed over to
learned State counsel during the course of the day.
Mr. Sahil Chaudhary, Advocate has caused
representation on behalf of respondent No.2 and admits
the factum of compromise.
Accordingly, the private parties are directed to
appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on
16.03.2020 or any other date, convenient to the Court
for recording their statements with regard to
compromise/settlement. Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate 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 in FIR.
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 case or not.
5. The trial Court is also directed to record the
statement of the Investigation Officer as to how
many victims/complainants are there in the FIR.
11.02.2020 (VIVEK PURI)
Janki JUDGE"
In pursuance of the said order, a report has been submitted by
the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri to the
Registrar (General) of this Court. The relevant portion of the said report is
2 of 5
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"In view of above statement of complainant and present
two accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that
compromise arrived at between the complainant and
above stated accused is voluntarily, without any pressure
and genuine. The para wise report is as follows:
1. As per statement of the Investigating Officer,
there are two accused namely, Vikram Jaiswal
and Paramjit Singh.
2. As per statement of the Investigating Officer, none
of the accused has been declared as Proclaimed
Offender.
3. As per statements of all the concerned parties,
compromise is genuine voluntary and without any
coercion or undue influence.
4. As per statement of 1.0, no other FIR or case is
pending against both the accused.
5. As per statement of the Investigating Officer,
there is no other aggrieved party except
complainant Mukul Mehta.
Report is submitted for his lordship's kind perusal
and necessary action, please.
Thanking you,"
A perusal of the said report would show that it has been
stated that the statements of the complainant as well as the accused have
been recorded in the case and both 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.
3 of 5
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 these facts are correct.
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,
this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the
petitioners and the complainant. 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
4 of 5
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:-
"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. 211 dated 20.06.2016 under Sections 148, 149,
323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police Station
Farakpur, District Yamunanagar and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of the compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua
the petitioners.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
March 16th, 2022
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
