Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 November, 2022
CRM-M-2986-2022 -1-
261 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2986-2022
Date of Decision: 21.11.2022
Sandeep Kumar and others ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Ms. Savita Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Kirpal Singh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Divyam Singh Dhakla, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of FIR No.1129 dated 26.10.2017, registered under
Sections 377, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC, at Police Station Karnal City, District
Karnal and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure P-1).
FIR in question was lodged by complainant-respondent No.2
and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention
of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved
their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as
Annexure P-1 On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are praying
that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an
abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of
justice.
This Court vide order dated 20.07.2022 directed the parties to
1 of 5
appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording their statements, as
contended before the Court, and the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was also
directed to send its report.
In pursuance to the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Karnal has sent its report dated 28.10.2022 to this Court. With the report,
she has also annexed photocopies of statements of respondent No.2-Sonam
and one Subhash Chand (father of the complainant) and statements of the
petitioners, namely, Sandeep, Ramesh and Tripta recorded on 18.08.2022
and statement of ASI Jaipal recorded on 30.08.2022. On the basis of the
statements, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal has concluded in its
report that compromise has been effected between the parties with their own
free will and without any pressure or threat and the same seems to be
genuine one and the compromise is not the result of any fraud or
misrepresentation. It is further mentioned in the report that there are only
three accused persons in the present case i.e. the petitioners. It is also
mentioned in the report that neither any of the accused has been declared
proclaimed offender in the present case or in any other criminal case nor any
other criminal case is pending against them.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.
A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would
show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C.
is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for
compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
2 of 5
Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed
and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the
continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others
Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and
others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases
675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt
with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.
Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of
Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with
the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of
the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para
61 of the judgment reads as under:-
"61. 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 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
3 of 5
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 a 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
pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, 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 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 the 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
the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora
4 of 5
of judgments and this High Court it is apparent that when the parties have
entered into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then
continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the
Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by
quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily
the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
This Court is conscious of the fact that Section 377 IPC comes
in the ambit of heinous and non-compoundable offences. But in the peculiar
facts and circumstances and in the larger interest of both the parties and to
secure the ends of justice, the Court deems it appropriate to use its
discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in favour of the parties.
In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in
hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial
precedents and hence, FIR No.1129 dated 26.10.2017, registered under
Sections 377, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC, at Police Station Karnal City, District
Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby
quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-1).
Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms
and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the
Court below.
Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
21.11.2022 JUDGE
sharmila
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
