Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mudit Singla vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 April, 2023
CRM-M No.9002 of 2023 --1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.9002 of 2023
Reserved on: 10.04.2023
Pronounced on: 24.04.2023
Mudit Shingla ......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Vishal Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ankit Singla, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
***
ANOOP CHITKARA J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
44 17.07.2019 Industrial Sector-29, Panipat 406, 420, 506 IPC
The petitioner, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before
this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings
based on the compromise with the aggrieved person.
2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have
compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.
3. After that, the petitioner came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the
quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent.
4. This court had asked the parties to appear before the concerned court and had asked
the said court to give its report as per the format. The report reads as follows:
Name of the reporting JMIC, Panipat
Court
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
44 17.07.2019 Sector-29, Panipat 406, 420, 506 IPC
JYOTI
2023.04.24 16:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M No.9002 of 2023 --2--
Criminal Case no. 105 of 2021 dated 28.04.2021
before trial Court
1. Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ Sawar Mal Goyal
aggrieved persons(s)
2. Dates on which the statement(s) of the 09.03.2023
complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved
persons(s) were recorded
3. Has the identity of the complainant/ Yes
victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been
verified?
4. Whether all the victims/ all the Yes
aggrieved persons have compromised
the matter?
5. Is there pressure, threat, or coercion No
upon the victim(s)/aggrieved
person(s)/complainant?
6. Names of the accused person(s) Mudit Shingla
7. Dates on which the statement(s) of the 09.03.2023
accused persons(s) recorded
8. Whether all the accused have Yes
compromised the matter? If no, then
the names of the accused who have
compromised.
9. Whether proclamation proceedings No
are pending against any accused?
10. Has the police report been filed or Yes
not?
11. Notice of accusation /Charges have No
been framed or not?
12. Sections of statutes invoked in the 406, 420 and 506 IPC
matter
13. Whether the court is satisfied with the Yes
genuineness of the compromise?
ANALYSIS & REASONING:
5. Despite the opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following aspects
would be relevant to conclude this petition. In the present case, all the offences are
compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. Given the legislative mandate, the prosecution can
be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.
6. In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who
fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.
7. In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise,
placement of parties, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise
deed and its objectives point towards its acceptance.
JYOTI
2023.04.24 16:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M No.9002 of 2023 --3--
8. In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes
324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is
concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only
because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special
Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the
FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been
entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance
would automatically stands vitiated."
9. Considering the entire facts, compromise, and in the light of the above-mentioned
judicial precedents, I believe that continuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful
purpose whatsoever. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invokes
the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all subsequent
proceedings qua the petitioner(s). The bail bonds of the petitioner are accordingly
discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
Petition allowed in the terms mentioned above.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
24.04.2023
Jyoti-II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
JYOTI
2023.04.24 16:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
