Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikas And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 November, 2022
CRM-M-54225-2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236-2 CRM-M-54225-2019
Date of Decision : 21.11.2022
Vikas and others ......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr.Neeraj Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. D.S.Matya, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 5.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
seeking quashing of FIR No.723 dated 10.10.2018, under Sections 323, 34
and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar, District
Gurugram (Section 201 IPC added later on) (Annexure P-1) and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise-
deed/affidavit dated 10.12.2019 (Annexure P-2).
In terms of order dated 04.03.2022, learned JMIC, Gurugram
has submitted his report dated 09.03.2022. The relevant extracts of the
report are as below :-
"It was stated by both the affected parties in their
separately recorded statements that they had arrived at
a compromise. The complainant party has stated that
1 of 5
they have arrived at compromise with the accused with
their free consent and without any pressure. They have
also stated that they have 'no-objection' to quashing of
FIR No.723 dated 10.10.2018 registered under Section
323, 506, 34 of IPC at police-station: Sadar by Hon'ble
High Court. It is further submitted that as per the
statement of the parties, the compromise is genuine,
voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence.
It is also submitted that three persons have been
arrayed as accused in FIR. It is further submitted that as
per the statement of SHO Police-Station: Sadar, none of
the accused is proclaimed offender and they are not
involved in any other case of police-station: Sadar.
It is further submitted that as per statement dated
24.01.2020 of the Investigating Officer, there are two
victims/complainants [Pankaj and Rajan] in the FIR.
The statement of both the parties, of Investigating
Officer [regarding number of victims] and of SHO of
police-station: Sadar, Gurugram (as to whether any of
accused persons is declared proclaimed offender and
are involved in any other case] are being sent to the
Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court for further
proceedings."
Learned State counsel submits that she has no objection if the
present FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.
Relying upon its earlier judgments in 'Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and others, (2012) 10 SCC 303' and 'The State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688', a two Judge
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ramgopal and another Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC online SC 834' while dealing with power of
High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable
2 of 5
offences on the basis of compromise between the disputing parties has held:
"11. True it is that offences which are 'non-
compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal
court in purported exercise of its powers under Section
320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount
to alteration, addition and modification of Section
320Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature.
There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of
Section 320Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider
interpretation and include such offences in the docket of
'compoundable' offences which have been consciously
kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited
jurisdiction to compound an offence within the
framework of Section 320Cr.P.C. is not an embargo
against invoking inherent powers by the High Court
vested in it under Section 482Cr.P.C. The High Court,
keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a
case and for justifiable reasons can press Section
482Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.
12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to
the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have
amicably settled their dispute and the victim has
willingly consented to the nullification of criminal
proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of
its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if
the offences are non- compoundable. The High Court
can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the
offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter
adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony,
even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze
the very object of the administration of criminal justice
system.
3 of 5
13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings
involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are
pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled
irrespective of the fact that trial has already been
concluded or appeal stands dismissed against
conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form
of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws
evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes
without saying, that the cases where compromise is
struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise
such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the
circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in
which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due
regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence,
besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the
incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-
ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to
secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast
line constricting the power of the High Court to do
substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or
specious justice, which in the given facts and
circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave
injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous
offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such
benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by
this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab
& Ors.3 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
14. In other words, grave or serious offences or
offences which involve moral turpitude or have a
harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the
society or involve matters concerning public policy,
cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups
4 of 5
only, for such offences have the potential to impact the
society at large. Effacing abominable offences through
quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to
the community but may also accord an undue benefit to
unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who
can secure a 'settlement' through duress, threats, social
boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said
that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided."
From the perusal of the enclosed FIR, report of the Trial Court
and compromise arrived between the parties, it transpires that contesting
parties have amicably resolved their issue, thus, no useful purpose would be
served by continuing the proceedings. The alleged offences are of pre-
dominantly private in nature and no moral turpitude or interest of public at
large is involved. There appears to be no chance of conviction, the
continuance of the proceedings would just waste valuable judicial time and
it is well-known fact that courts are already over burdened.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the present petition
deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed. FIR No.723 dated
10.10.2018, under Sections 323, 34 and 506 of IPC, registered at Police
Station Gurgaon Sadar, District Gurugram (Section 201 IPC added later on)
(Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom
are quashed qua the petitioner(s).
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
21.11.2022
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
