Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shubham Kundu vs State Of Haryana And Another on 22 November, 2022
CRM-M-2808-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2808-2022
Date of Decision: 22.11.2022
Shubham Kundu and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
Present: - Mr. S.S. Bairagi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Naveen Kashyap, Advocate for
Mr. Vikram Rana, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 0049 dated 13.02.2021
(Annexure P-1) registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections
397 and 511 IPC at Police Station Thanesar Sadar, District Kurukshetra
and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise dated 01.12.2021 (Annexure P-2).
Pursuant to the order dated 04.02.2022, passed by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the parties appeared before the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, to get their statements
recorded. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra,
1 of 4
has submitted his report along with statements of the parties vide letter
No. 314 dated 04.03.2022 duly forwarded by the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide letter No. 924(J) dated 07.03.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter
has been compromised between the parties and statements qua
genuineness of the compromise have also been recorded. Therefore, the
instant FIR may be ordered to be quashed. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon judgments in
Mohd. Muddasar Ansari vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011
(14) RCR (Criminal) 95 and Parveen Kumar vs. The State of Bihar
and others, 2017(4) PLJR 235.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned
State Counsel, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and gone through
the relevant record.
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
2 of 4
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 to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr., 2012 (4) RAJ
549: 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.
According to the report, learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kurukshetra, is satisfied that the parties have voluntarily
entered into the compromise which is in the interest of parties and would
bring harmony and peace between the parties. The same is genuine and is
not result of any pressure or coercion in any manner.
Considering the report of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kurukshetra and the fact that the compromise will bring
peace and harmony between the parties, aforesaid FIR No. 0049 dated
13.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising
3 of 4
therefrom, are quashed, qua petitioners, only, subject to deposit of
Rs.25,000/- with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Chandigarh,
within two weeks from today towards cost of proceeding. The petitioners
shall furnish a copy of receipt qua deposit of costs in the Registry, within
the stipulated time, failing which this petition shall be deemed to be
dismissed.
Disposed of, accordingly.
November 22, 2022 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
