Punjab-Haryana High Court
Madhav Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 5 September, 2022
CRM-M-27314-2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.241 CRM-M-27314-2018
Date of Decision: 05.09.2022
Madhav Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate,
for respondent No. 3.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral)
Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.373,
dated 17.06.2017, under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 201 of the IPC,
registered at Police Station Sector 5, Gurugram, and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the
compromise deed dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure P-2).
On 04.07.2018, this Court had passed the following order:-
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
matter has since been amicably settled vide compromise,
copy of which has been placed on file as Annexure P-2.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Lalit Kumar Yadav, Advocate, who is present in
the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and 3
1 of 5
and filed power of attorney.
Parties may appear before the trial Court on
06.08.2018 or on any other date convenient to the trial
Court and get their statements recorded with regard to the
compromise. The original compromise shall be produced
before the trial Court. In the event of their statements being
recorded, the trial Court will send copies of the same to this
Court with its
report:
(i) regarding genuineness and voluntary nature of the
compromise;
(ii) whether all the accused/petitioners are appearing
before the Court or are on bail; and
(iii) whether any other proceeding is pending against
the accused/petitioner.
Report of trial Court be awaited for 15.10.2018."
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 01.09.2018 has
been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram. The relevant
paragraph of the said report is as under:-
"In the present case, the only accused has been named
in the FIR No.373, dated 17.06.2017, under Sections
406, 420, 506 and 201 of the IPC, is Madhav Sharm son
of Shri Budh Dev. As per the report of the Police Station
Sector -5 of Gurugram, the accused has not been found
involved in other criminal cases and no other
proceedings is also pending against the accused. The
accused Madhav Sharma is on bail in the present case
This Curt is of the considered view that the
compromise has been reached voluntarily between the
parties and both the parties have made their statements
voluntarily and without having any threat, inducement
or pressure.
2 of 5
The original statements of the parties i.e. of the
complainant and accused and the original compromise
Ex.CW1/A are enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of
the Your Honour.
Naveen Kumar-1,
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Gurugram
(HR-0461)"
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 and they have
no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. It is stated in the
report that there is only one accused person and the compromise effected
between the parties is genuine and has been arrived at between them
without any pressure or coercion. It is also stated in the report that none
of the accused is declared as proclaimed offender and no other case has
been registered against the accused persons except the FIR in question.
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
petitioners and the complainants. 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,
3 of 5
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:-
"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.373,
dated 17.06.2017, under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 201 of the IPC,
registered at Police Station Sector 5, Gurugram, and all other
4 of 5
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua the
petitioners.
05.09.2022 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
monika JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes
Whether reportable: No
5 of 5
