Parmod And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 13901 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

229
                                           CRM-M-28908-2019 (O&M)
                                           Date of Decision : 04.11.2022


Parmod and another                                            .....Petitioners

                                  Versus

State of Haryana and another                                .....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

Present :   None.

                                ****

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL)

CRM-32560-2021

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and documents filed by the petitioners are taken on record as

Annexures P-4 to P-8.

CRM-M-28908-2019

The petitioners have filed the present petition under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of

FIR No.249 dated 27.06.2019 registered under Sections 307 and 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Kherki Daula, District

Gurugram (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising

therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) effected

between the private parties.

Pursuant to order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court, the parties appeared before learned

District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram to get their statements recorded.

Learned District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram submitted his report

1 of 4

CRM-M-28908-2019 (O&M) -2-

along with copies of statements of the parties vide letter dated

26.08.2021 which is taken on record.

According to the above-said report, learned District and

Sessions Judge, Gurugram is satisfied that compromise effected

between the parties is genuine, outcome of free consent of the parties

and is without coercion from any quarter.

It is now well settled that the High Court has inherent

power to quash the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases on

the basis of settlement between the parties for securing the ends of

justice or to prevent abuse of the process where 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.

Criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil

character particularly those arising out of commercial transaction or

arising out of matrimonial relationship or family dispute can be

quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute among

themselves. However, such power cannot be exercised in those

prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental

depravity or offences like murder, rape dacoity, etc. which are not

private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly,

prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed under special

enactments like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences

committed by public servant while working in that capacity cannot be

quashed on the basis of compromise between the victim and the

offender. For judicial precedents in this regard, reference may be made

2 of 4

CRM-M-28908-2019 (O&M) -3-

to Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Supreme Court) : 2014 (2)

RCR (Criminal) 482, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan

and others (Supreme Court) : 2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 255 and

Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (Punjab

and Haryana High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh's case

(supra) has observed as under: -

"31 (VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship."

In CRM-M-16154-2016 titled 'Jagroop Singh and others

Vs. State of Punjab and others' decided on 01.03.2017, a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in para No.8 of the judgment has observed as

under:

"{8}. In nutshell each case has to be considered on its own

3 of 4

CRM-M-28908-2019 (O&M) -4-

merits. While exercising inherent powers, High Court has to examine whether possibility of conviction is bleak and continuation of proceedings would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and would result in futility. Offence under Section 307 IPC falls under the category of heinous offence and generally it is to be treated offence against the State/society and not an individual offence. At the same time High Court would not base its decision merely because offence under Section 307 IPC is mentioned in the FIR or in the charge. It is still open before the Court as to whether insertion of offence under Section 307 IPC is based on evidence or it is just for the sake of incorporation in the FIR."

In view of above and the report dated 26.09.2021 of

learned District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram and the fact that the

compromise will bring peace and harmony between the parties,

aforesaid FIR No.249 dated 27.06.2019 (Annexure P-1) and all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, qua the

petitioners only.

             Disposed of, accordingly



                                           (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
04.11.2022                                        JUDGE
Kothiyal

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




                                 4 of 4