Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjeet Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 November, 2022
CRM-M No.15743 of 2021 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.15743 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided on: 02.11.2022
Manjeet Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present : None.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
The Lawyers are abstaining from work.
CRM No.38449 of 2022
Prayer in this application is for early hearing of the main
petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is
allowed and the main case is taken up today.
CRM-M No.15743 of 2021 (O&M)
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.59 dated
17.02.2016, for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered at Police
Station Model Town, District Rewari (Annexure P1), on the basis of the
compromise effected between the parties.
Vide order dated 08.04.2021, the parties were directed to
appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements
recorded with regard to genuineness of the compromise.
A report dated 07.06.2021 has been submitted by the
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari, wherein it has been reported that
statements of the petitioner and respondent No.2 have been recorded
1 of 4
and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have
voluntarily entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the
parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure,
threat or coercion and out of their free will.
It is stated in the petition that no other criminal case is
pending between the parties and the petitioner has not been declared as
proclaimed offender.
I have gone through the entire paperbook and perused the
report submitted by the trial Court.
After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this
Court is of the opinion that the matter has been amicably settled
between the petitioner and respondent/victims, who have decided to
bury their dispute and live in peace.
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 feel that the same was
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, has held
as under:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High
2 of 4
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, 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
predominatingly civil flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal
3 of 4
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal case would put 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
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 affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding."
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have
decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing
the criminal proceedings to continue.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the
petition is allowed and FIR No.59 dated 17.02.2016, for offence
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at
Police Station Model Town, District Rewari and proceedings emanating
therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioner, subject to
payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal
Services Authority, Rewari.
(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE
02.11.2022
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
