Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surender Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 20 January, 2023
CRM-M-56386-2022 -1-
260 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-56386-2022
Date of Decision:20.01.2023
SURENDER SINGH ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ....... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Ms. Ruchi Bharat, Advocate for
Mr. Amit Parashar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG,Haryana.
Mr. Nimanyu Gautam, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
of FIR No.0453 dated 22.06.2016, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Ballabhgarh City, District Faridabad
(Annexure P-1), and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise/ affidavit dated 23.08.2022
(Annexure P-3). The petitioner is further praying for quashing of order
dated 23.10.2017 declaring the petitioner proclaimed person.
In terms of order dated 05.01.2023 of this Court, learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad has submitted his report dated
20.01.2023. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-
"2. Upon preliminary inquiry, the parties stated
that the matter had been amicably settled between
them voluntarily and without any coercion or undue
influence of any kind. Thereupon, their statements
1 of 6
qua the compromise were recorded separately. The
same are being attached herewith.
3. It is further submitted that I am satisfied that
the complainant and accused have entered into a
compromise, which appears to be valid, voluntary
and genuine.
4. Further, there is only one
complainant/aggrieved person namely Kavita W/o
Surender Singh in this case, Initially, complainant
had made complaint to the police against accused
Surender Singh as well as Dayawati & Anita,
whereupon the instant FIR no. 453/2016 under
Section 498A, 406 & 506 of IPC PS City Ballabgarh,
Faridabad was registered; however, Final Report
under Section 173 Cr.PC was presented by the police
only against accused
Surender Singh.
5. It is further submitted that trial has yet not
commenced in this case. As per the Final Report
under Section 173 Cr.PC presented by the police,
accused Surender evaded arrest despite repeated
attempts, whereupon he was proclaimed person from
the court vide order dated 22.09.2017; thereafter, PO
challan was presented against him on 06.01.2018
after completion of investigations. The accused
appeared before the court in this case for the first
time on 13.01.2023 for recording of his statement
regarding compromise with the complainant.
6. From the statement of accused Surnder as well
as that of Investigating Officer SI Anand Pal also
recorded on 13.01.2023, I am satisfied that none of
the parties are involved or has been declared as a
Proclaimed Person or Offender in this case or any
other case."
2 of 6
Statement of Investigating Officer was recorded by Trial
Court and said statement is part of report dated 20.01.2023 submitted by
learned Trial Court.
Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating
Officer and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that they have
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 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
3 of 6
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
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
4 of 6
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 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
5 of 6
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.0453 dated 22.06.2016, under Sections 498-A, 406
and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Ballabhgarh City, District
Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and order dated 23.10.2017 as well all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the
petitioner(s).
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
20.01.2023
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
