Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahul Alias Rahulraj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 3 November, 2022
CRM-M-47317-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-47317-2022
Date of decision : 03.11.2022
Rahul @ Rahulraj Panghal and others
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: None.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
Today, the Lawyers have decided to abstain from appearing in
the Court because of the call given by the Bar Association.
This is a first petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No.0485 dated 21.08.2022 registered under Sections 147,
149, 323, 341, 506 IPC at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani and all
the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
On 14.10.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following
order:-
"Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 0485, dated 21.08.2022 (Annexure P-
1), under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341 and 506 IPC, registered at
Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani, and all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise
(Annexures P-2), effected between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in regard to the
same incident in CRM-M-46926-2022, already co-ordinate Bench of
1 of 5
this Court vide order dated 12.10.2022 has issued notice of motion for
03.11.2022 with a direction to the parties for recording their
respective statements qua compromise before Illaqa Magistrate/Trial
Court. He further submits that both the parties have amicably resolved
their dispute through a compromise (Annexure P-2). He further
submits that if, proceedings arising from the aforementioned FIR are
quashed, both the parties will live their lives peacefully.
Notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana,
who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-
State.
Mr. Mohit Nehra, appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 and
admits execution of the compromise (Annexure P-2).
The affected parties are directed to appear before the learned
Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate within a period of three weeks from
today or any other date convenient to the concerned Court, who shall
record their respective statements with regard to the compromise and
submit a detailed report in that regard along with copies of the
statements to this Court on or before the adjourned date, containing
the following information as well:-
i. Total number of persons arrayed as accused in the case;
ii. Whether all the accused and complainant / victims are party to
compromise;
iii. Whether any accused has been declared as a proclaimed
offender or any such proceedings have been initiated or pending
decision;
iv. Stage of the trial/proceedings; and
v. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any
coercion or undue influence. To come up on 03.11.2022, awaiting
report.
Reply by the respondent-State, if any, be filed on or before the
next date of hearing .
To be heard alongwith CRM-M-46926-2022.
October 14, 2022. "
In pursuance of the abovesaid order, a report has been
submitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tosham. The relevant
portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
2 of 5
"Accordingly, as per record, the information with
regard to five points mentioned above, as desired by the
Hon'ble High Court is as under:
i. The total number of persons arrayed as accused in the
present case are five (5) and out of them one accused
namely Rahul alias Bholu son of Jogender, resident of
village Bagawata has been joined in the investigation of
this case
ii. Four out of five accused and the sole complainant are
party to the compromise;
iii. As per report of Investigating Officer no accused has
been declared as a Proclaimed Offender or any such
proceedings have been initiated or pending decision.
iv. The present case is at Investigation stage.
v. The compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any
coercion or undue influence."
A perusal of the said report would show that the compromise
has been found to be genuine, without any pressure or undue influence. 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 has
further been stated that in all there are five accused persons out of which
four persons have filed the present petition.
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.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as Jayrajsinh
Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported as 2012 (12)
3 of 5
SCC 401, has held that where there is a partial compromise with some of the
accused then also, the proceedings against the said petitioner/accused
should be quashed as the same would not even remotely result in conviction
of the said accused.
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment dated
04.07.2019 passed in CRM-M-16318-2018 titled as Dalip Mandal and
another Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others was pleased to allow the
petition qua the petitioners only although, the matter had not been
compromised between all the parties.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder
Singh and others Vs State of Punjab", reported as 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", reported as 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:-
"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
4 of 5
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.0485 dated 21.08.2022 registered under Sections 147,
149, 323, 341, 506 IPC at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani and all
the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise,
are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.
03.11.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Davinder Kumar JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
