Thursday, 21, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Heera Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 12654 P&H

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12654 P&H
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2022

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Heera Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 30 September, 2022
CRM-M-46864-2021                                             -1-

245
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRM-M-46864-2021
                                                 Date of decision : 30.09.2022

Heera Singh

                                                                     ...Petitioner

                                        Versus

State of Haryana and another

                                                                   ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:      Mr. Ashish Jhamb, Advocate for
              Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

              Mr. Dhruv Sihag, AAG, Haryana.

              Mr. Harkirat Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

              ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for

quashing of FIR No.88 dated 05.03.2021, registered under Sections 420,

406, 120-B and 171 IPC, at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal and all

other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of

compromise.

On 19.09.2022, this Court had passed the following order:-

"This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.88 dated 05.03.2021, registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B and 171 IPC, at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

1 of 5

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, there are seven accused persons, out of which, one accused person i.e. the present petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise and thus, the present case is a case of partial compromise and has relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported as 2012(12) SCC 401 to contend that even in case of a partial compromise, FIR can be quashed qua the accused with whom the compromise has been effected.

Notice of motion for 30.09.2022.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Dhruv Sihag, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Hoshiar Singh Jaswal, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and admits the factum of compromise.

The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua compromise within a period of 10 days.

The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information:-

1. Number of persons arrayed as accused.

2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender?

3. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence?

4. Whether the accused persons are involved in any other FIR or not?

5. The trial Court is also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR."

In pursuance of the abovesaid order, a report has been

2 of 5

submitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal. The relevant portion

of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"The compromise between the parties is genuine, voluntary, without any undue influence. The original statement of the complainant, accused, statement of investigation officer, copy of daily order passed today are annexed herewith for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court."

A perusal of the said report would show that the compromise

has been found to be genuine, without any pressure or undue influence. It

has been stated that the statements of the complainant as well as the accused

have been recorded in the case and both have stated that the matter has been

compromised and they have no objection in case the FIR is quashed. It is

further stated that the statement of the complainant has been made

voluntarily without any fear, coercion or pressure.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner was not declared proclaimed offender in the present case.

Learned counsel for the State, as per instructions has stated that the said fact

is correct.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has again reiterated that

the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest of all

the persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity between the

two parties.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the file. After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this

Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner

and the complainant. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have

3 of 5

decided to live in peace, this Court feels 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", reported as 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 opinion that the same is

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", reported as 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 what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is

4 of 5

allowed and FIR No.88 dated 05.03.2021, registered under Sections 420,

406, 120-B and 171 IPC, at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal and all

other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of

compromise, are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioner.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand

disposed of in view of the abovesaid judgment.

30.09.2022                                            (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan                                                    JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                5 of 5

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter