Mangal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1716 P&H

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH.

245
                                           CRM-M-48966-2019
                                           Date of decision : 16.03.2022


MANGAL AND OTHERS                                             ....Petitioners


                                  Versus


STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.                                   .....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH

Present :    Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Gaurav Bansal, AAG, Haryana
             for respondent No. 1/State.

             Ms. Anshumaan Dalal, Advocate
             for respondents No. 2 and 3.

                                   ****

SANT PARKASH, J. (ORAL)

Petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant

petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking

its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR No. 159 dated 20.05.2013

registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 324, 506 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') registered at Police Station Sadar,

Rohtak, District Rohtak as well as the consequential proceedings

arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived

at between the parties.

Reply on behalf of respondent No. 1/State is already on the

case file.

In para No. 3 of the reply, it has been mentioned that

1 of 4

challan in the present FIR was filed in the Court of learned Illaqa

Magistrate, Rohtak against the present petitioners. After conclusion of

the trial, the learned trial Court vide order/judgment dated 14.05.2018

has convicted petitioners No. 1 to 4 and thereafter, the petitioners have

filed appeal CRA-1672-2018 challenging the above said

order/judgment of conviction which is pending before the Court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak.

Vide order dated 29.01.2020, the parties were directed to

appear before the trial Court to record their statements with regard to

the compromise and send a report to this Court. In compliance to the

said order, report dated 13.03.2020 of learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Rohtak has been received in connected petition CRM-M-32126-

2019, wherein it is stated that in pursuance of the order of this Court,

the complainant and aggrieved persons have appeared and they have

compromised the matter with the accused persons. Statements of the

parties were recorded. The parties have compromised the matter in the

present case as well as in cross version case. The complainant and

victims have no objection in quashing of the present FIR. Further,

report in the matter received indicates that the compromise effected

between the parties is genuine, without any coercion or undue

influence.

Learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties

admit that parties have settled their disputes.

The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case "Kulwinder

Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052"

2 of 4

and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case "Sube Singh and

another v. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal)

102" observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after

conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction

pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non-compoundable

offence.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going

through record of the case and the above referred judicial precedents,

this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercising

the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., so as

to secure the ends of justice because the parties have arrived at an out

of the Court settlement by way of compromise (Annexure P-2). The

compromise is without any pressure and a genuine one. In such a

situation, continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of

process of law.

Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has

been amicably settled between the parties and also in view of the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and

others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the

present petition is allowed. Resultantly, FIR No. 159 dated 20.05.2013

registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 324, 506 of the IPC

registered at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak, District Rohtak, as well as

the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the

petitioners and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

3 of 4

Rohtak, in the present FIR, is set aside. The appeal preferred by the

petitioners against the aforesaid judgment would be rendered

infructuous and shall be so declared by the learned first Appellate

Court.

                                                  (SANT PARKASH)
16.03.2022                                            JUDGE
kavneet singh

                Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
                Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                                    4 of 4