Punjab-Haryana High Court
Adih Mushkaan Saif @ Aadi Muskan ... vs State Of Haryana And Another on 22 November, 2022
CRM-M-44588-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
282
CRM-M-44588-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.11.2022
ADIH MUSHKAAN SAIF @ AADI MUSKAN SAIF
....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Kanhiya Soni, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Gurnam Chahal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.75, dated
17.02.2020, under Sections 325, 506 and 34 of the IPC (Section 34 IPC deleted
later on) registered at Police Station DLF, Gurugram, and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 14.09.2022
(Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion was issued on 26.09.2022 and both the parties were
directed to appear before the trial Court for recording their statements in the
context of genuineness of the compromise. The trial Court was also directed to
submit its report with regard to genuineness of the compromise.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 31.10.2022 has been
received from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram. A perusal of the said
report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the
present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between the parties
1 of 3
CRM-M-44588-2022 (O&M) -2-
and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed and the
compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and
coercion. It is stated in the report that there is only one accused and one victim,
who is complainant. The accused has not been declared as proclaimed offender
and is not involved in any other FIR.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone
through the case file.
After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court
finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner(s) and the
complainant(s). Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to
live in peace, this Court is of the view that in order to secure the ends of justice,
the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh
and others Vs State of Punjab", 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 view that the same was 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", 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:-
2 of 3
CRM-M-44588-2022 (O&M) -3-
"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 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 the above, the petition is allowed and FIR No.75, dated
17.02.2020, under Sections 325, 506 and 34 of the IPC (Section 34 IPC deleted
later on) registered at Police Station DLF, Gurugram, and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 14.09.2022
(Annexure P-2), are quashed qua the petitioner.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
November 22, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
