Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kalra vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 November, 2022
232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-45116-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.11.2022
Rakesh Kalra ...........Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate for
Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of FIR No.48 dated 01.04.2016 under Sections 279/337/338 of
IPC registered at Police Station Guhla, District Kaithal and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom including judgment of conviction dated
05.11.2019 (Annexure P-2), on the basis of compromise dated 08.10.2021
(Annexure P-3).
Vide order dated 28.10.2021, this Court had directed the
parties to appear before Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements
recorded in terms of certain parameters given in the aforesaid order dated
28.10.2021 with regard to the compromise dated 08.10.2021 (Annexure
P-3). The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was to submit a report in this regard
giving certain details as enumerated in the said order. Pursuant to the order
dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before
the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla and as per the report
1 of 3
CRM-M-45116-2021 (O&M) -2-
dated 23.11.2021 submitted to this Court, both the parties have got
recorded their respective statements in Court.
A perusal of the aforesaid report would show that the parties
have effected a genuine compromise without there being any pressure,
coercion or undue influence and petitioner is not a proclaimed offender.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ramgopal and another
versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 322", has held
that in non-compoundable cases of pre-dominantly private nature, even if
compromise is reached after conviction, the proceedings can be quashed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further, the compromise in the present case is
found to be fully covered in consonance of judgments and the directions
issued by the Court in "Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2007
(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052" and "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.,
2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "A.T. Sivaperumal versus
Mohammed Hyath (D) by LRs, decided on 27.03.2017", has held that once
the settlement between the parties has been arrived at, the conviction can
also be set aside and the litigation too. Similar view has been taken by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of "Jagmohan Vs. Sandeep
Aggarwal and another 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 86".
In view of the aforesaid report of the learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Guhla accompanied by statements of both the parties,
FIR No.48 dated 01.04.2016 under Sections 279/337/338 of IPC registered
at Police Station Guhla, District Kaithal along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom as well as judgment of conviction
dated 05.11.2019 (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed, on the basis of
2 of 3
CRM-M-45116-2021 (O&M) -3-
compromise, qua the petitioner only, subject to the petitioner depositing an
amount of Rs.15,000/- as costs, with the Punjab & Haryana High Court
Legal Services Committee within three months from the date of passing of
this judgment.
The petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
16.11.2022 JUDGE
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
