Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Parsad And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 September, 2022
CRM-M-28159 of 2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.263 CRM-M-28159 of 2021
Date of Decision: September 26, 2022
Ram Parsad and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present:- None.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral)
Bar is abstaining from work today.
Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.442,
dated 11.12.2020, under Sections 186, 323, 34, 353 and 506 IPC,
registered at Police Station Gohana Sadar, District Sonipat, and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the
compromise.
Notice of motion was issued on 22.07.2021 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 27.08.2021 has
been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gohana. 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
1 of 3
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 are two accused and two complainants. None of the
accused has been declared as proclaimed offender and none of them is
involved in any other FIR.
I have 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
2 of 3
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.442,
dated 11.12.2020, under Sections 186, 323, 34, 353 and 506 IPC,
registered at Police Station Gohana Sadar, District Sonipat, and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the
petitioners.
September 26, 2022 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
rimpal JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
