Ravinder And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 14982 P&H

CRM-M-34426-2022                                                             -1-

273          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                              CRM-M-34426-2020
                                              Date of Decision: 23.11.2022
Ravinder and others                                  ..... Petitioners
                          Versus
State of Haryana and another                         .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:     Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners.
             Mr. Kirpal Singh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana.
             Mr. Jaswinder Singh Rana, 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.55 dated 03.02.2018, registered under

Sections 323, 34, 376, 506 IPC (Section 376 IPC deleted lateron), at Police

Station Sadar, Sonepat and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom

on the basis of compromise dated 23.07.2022 (Annexure P-3).

Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Ravinder has

stated that the present case was registered against three persons, namey,

Ravinder, Raj Singh and Rajesh Kumari and Section 376 IPC was deleted

during investigation and as such petitioner No.4-Rohit was not challaned.

He further submits that challan in this case was presented only against

petitioners No.1 to 3 .

In view of this, the present petition qua petitioner No.4 stands

dismissed and it only survives qua petitioners No.1 to 3 only.

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

1 of 5

their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as

Annexure P-3. 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 05.08.2022 directed the parties to

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 Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Sonepat has sent its report dated 12.09.2022 to this Court. With

the report, she has also annexed original statements of respondent No.2-

Soma and petitioners No.1 to 3, namely, Ravinder, Raj Singh and Rajesh

Kumar recorded on 23.08.2022 and statement of P/SI Tejpal recorded on

09.09.2022. On the basis of the statements, learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat has concluded in its report that the compromise

is voluntarily and without any threat of pressure. It is further mentioned in

the report that there are only three accused persons arrayed in the present

FIR. It is also mentioned in the report that neither any of the accused has

been declared proclaimed offender in this FIR nor any other case is

registered against them.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record

and the report sent by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Sonepat.

A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would

2 of 5

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.

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

3 of 5

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 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

4 of 5

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

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.

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.55 dated 03.02.2018, registered under

Sections 323, 34, 376, 506 IPC (Section 376 IPC deleted lateron), at Police

Station Sadar, Sonepat and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,

are hereby quashed qua petitioners No.1 to 3, on the basis of compromise

(Annexure P-3).

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)
23.11.2022                                          JUDGE
sharmila            Whether Speaking/Reasoned   :     Yes/No
                    Whether Reportable          :     Yes/No


                                5 of 5