Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahul vs State Of Haryana And Another on 19 January, 2023
CRM-M-6749-2020 -1-
270 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6749-2020
Date of Decision:19.01.2023
RAHUL ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : None for the parties.
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 294, dated 14.10.2019, under Sections 376B, 323, 34, 406, 498A
and 506 of IPC (Sections 376B & 34 of IPC deleted later on), registered at
Police Station Urban Estate, Hisar, (Annexure P-1), and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/
affidavit dated 07.02.2020, (Annexure P-2).
In terms of order dated 14.02.2020 of this Court, learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar has submitted his report dated
13.03.2020. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-
"On oral inquiry, complainant Jiya Mehta and
accused Rahul stated that the matter has been settled.
Joint petition u/s 13B of Hindu Marrige Act has been
filed for divorce by way of mutual consent. The
complainant has compromised the matter voluntarily
without any pressure or coercion.
3. Statements of both the parties regarding
compromise recorded. Same are attached herewith.
1 of 5
4. It is further submitted that no accused has been
declared as Proclaimed Offender in this case.
5. It is submitted that I am satisfied that the matter has
been settled between the parties amicably/voluntarily
without any pressure or coercion and the compromise is
genuine."
As per the report of Trial Court the parties have filed petition
under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual
consent.
Learned State counsel submits that FIR was registered against
three persons, however, challan was presented against only one person i.e.
petitioner.
Statement of Investigating Officer was recorded by Trial Court
and said statement is part of report dated 13.03.2020 submitted by learned Trial
Court.
Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating Officer
and submitted that she has no objection if FIR and consequent proceedings in
view of compromise are quashed.
Relying upon its earlier judgments in 'Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and others, (2012) 10 SCC 303' and 'The State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688', a two Judge
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ramgopal and another Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC online SC 834' while dealing with power of
High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable
offences on the basis of compromise between the disputing parties has held:
"11. True it is that offences which are 'non-
compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal
court in purported exercise of its powers under Section
320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would
2 of 5
amount to alteration, addition and modification of
Section 320Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of
Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the
language of Section 320Cr.P.C., which may justify its
wider interpretation and include such offences in the
docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been
consciously kept out as non-compoundable.
Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an
offence within the framework of Section 320Cr.P.C. is
not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the
High Court vested in it under Section 482Cr.P.C. The
High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can
press Section 482Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of
justice.
12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to
the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have
amicably settled their dispute and the victim has
willingly consented to the nullification of criminal
proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of
its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if
the offences are non- compoundable. The High Court
can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the
offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter
adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony,
even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or
paralyze the very object of the administration of
criminal justice system.
13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings
involving non-heinous offences or where the offences
are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled
irrespective of the fact that trial has already been
concluded or appeal stands dismissed against
3 of 5
conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form
of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws
evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes
without saying, that the cases where compromise is
struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise
such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the
circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in
which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due
regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence,
besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the
incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-
ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to
secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast
line constricting the power of the High Court to do
substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or
specious justice, which in the given facts and
circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave
injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous
offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such
benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by
this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab
& Ors.3 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
14. In other words, grave or serious offences or
offences which involve moral turpitude or have a
harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the
society or involve matters concerning public policy,
cannot be construed between two individuals or groups
only, for such offences have the potential to impact the
society at large. Effacing abominable offences through
quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to
the community but may also accord an undue benefit to
unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who
can secure a 'settlement' through duress, threats, social
4 of 5
boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said
that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided."
From the perusal of the enclosed FIR, report of the Trial Court
and compromise arrived between the parties, it transpires that contesting
parties have amicably resolved their issue, thus, no useful purpose would be
served by continuing the proceedings. The alleged offences are of pre-
dominantly private in nature and no moral turpitude or interest of public at
large is involved. There appears to be no chance of conviction, the
continuance of the proceedings would just waste valuable judicial time and
it is well-known fact that courts are already over burdened.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the present petition
deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. FIR No. 294, dated
14.10.2019, under Sections 376B, 323, 34, 406, 498A and 506 of IPC
(Sections 376B & 34 of IPC deleted later on), registered at Police Station
Urban Estate, Hisar, (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).
Counsel for the parties are not present. The petition has been
disposed of in view of the record of learned Trial Court and statement of
learned State counsel, thus, the parties are at liberty to move an appropriate
application, if something survives.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
19.01.2023
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
