Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudhir Rao @ Sudhir Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100385
CRM-M-23668-2023 1
2023:PHHC:100385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
279
CRM-M-23668-2023
Date of decision : 02.08.2023
Sudhir Rao @ Sudhir Kumar ...... Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rahul Makkar, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing
of FIR No.0371 dated 16.09.2019, registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and Section 3 of the Haryana
Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013
(Haryana Act No.32 of 2014), at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak, on
the basis of compromise deed (Annexure P-2)
2. On 10.05.2023, the following order was passed:-
"The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0371
dated 16.09.2019, registered at Police Station Urban
Estate Rohtak, under Sections 406 & 420 IPC and
Section 3 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013
(Haryana Act No.32 of 2014) on the basis of
compromise.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100385
2023:PHHC:100385
Notice of motion.
Mr. Himmat Singh, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and waives
service.
Mr. Rahul Makkar, Advocate, puts in
appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondent
No.2 and waives service.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the
factum of compromise.
The parties are directed to appear before the trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 05.07.2023 for getting their
statements recorded. After recording the statements of
the parties, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall send
a report to this Court regarding genuineness of
compromise between them well before the next date of
hearing.
Adjourned to 02.08.2023."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 21.07.2023 from
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak as been received, which is taken
on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"xx xx xx
(i) Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary
and without coercion or undue influence?
Yes, the compromise arrived at between the parties is
genuine, voluntary, without any coercion or undue
influence."
4. Mr. Rahul Makkar, Advocate appears for respondent No.2
and admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has
no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto
against the petitioner are quashed.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100385
2023:PHHC:100385
5. Learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR
is quashed based upon the compromise.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully gone through the records of the case.
7. After considering judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, State
of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688,
Kulwinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3)
RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal
No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021), the proposition of
law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Court
and this Court is :
(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is not
affected by Section 320 of the Code.
(b) However, wider the power greater the caution.
(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power
is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings
recognizing compromise between the parties in the
matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly
of civil character like commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes.
(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the
prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity
etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have
a serious impact on society.
(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to
advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100385
2023:PHHC:100385
of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex
Court held that the High Court would not refuse to
quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds
mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of
injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on
vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used
etc.
(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be
permissible only after the evidence is collected after
investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed
during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out
while the matter is still under investigation.
(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences
even which are of private in nature, High Court is
required to consider antecedents of the accused,
conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding
or whether he has managed the complainant to enter
into a compromise.
8. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise
jurisdiction vested u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as :-
(i) The present matter does not fall within the
exceptions as carved out in Laxmi Narayan's
case (supra).
(ii) The offences are of private nature.
(iii) The parties have compromised.
(iv) As per the report received the compromise is
said to be voluntary in its nature.
(v) Complainant/victim has entered into
compromise on his own volition.
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.0371 dated
16.09.2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100385
2023:PHHC:100385
420 of IPC and Section 3 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 (Haryana Act No.32 of
2014), at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak and all proceedings arising
therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
02.08.2023 JUDGE
Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100385
5 of 5
