Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kapil vs State Of Haryana And Another on 12 January, 2023
CRM-M-24053-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
264 CRM-M-24053-2022
Date of Decision: 12.01.2023
Kapil ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana
Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioner through instant petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C, on the basis of Compromise, is seeking quashing of FIR
No.0174 dated 27.09.2020 (Annexure P-1) under Sections
323/34/377/498-A/406 & 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Women
Police Station, NIT Faridabad, along with all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 are
ad-idem that decree of divorce has already been passed.
In terms of order dated 30.05.2022 of this Court, Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Faridabad, has submitted his report dated
02.07.2022. The relevant extracts of the report are as below:-
1 of 6
"i) the number of accused arraigned in the FIR and how
many have appeared before it and have made statement
and whether any accused is absconding/P.O.
Report: As per statement of IO the present FIR was
lodged on the complaint of Smt. Neha Sharma against the
against Kapil, Rajender Kumar, Meenakshi and Neha.
During investigation, accused Rajender Kumar,
Meenakshi and Neha were found innocent. Challan
against the accused Kapil Maggo only was filed. It is
submitted that accused Kapil Maggo appeared and his
statement was recorded and he is not absconding/P.O. in
the case.
ii) the name of the complainant and injured/aggrieved
and whether all of them have appeared and made their
statements in support of the compromise:-
Report: As per statement of IO, the present case was
lodged on the complaint of Smt. Neha Sharma.
Complainant Neha Sharma appeared in the Court and
made statement in support of compromise.
(iii) the stage of trial/proceedings:-
Report: The present case is pending at the stage of
prosecution evidence. No PW has been recorded till now.
(iv) If the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of
free will of the parties:
Report: In the considered opinion of the undersigned, the
compromise so effected is for the amicable settlement of
the parties and without any external pressure, coercion
or force and is a valid compromise.
(v) Whether any other criminal case is pending against
the accused:
Report: In the present case, as per statement of accused,
no other criminal case is pending against him."
2 of 6
Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent
No.2 would submit that they have no objection, if the present FIR and
subsequent proceedings 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 320 Cr.P.C, which is the
exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent
ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.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 320 Cr.P.C. is not an
embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High
Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High
Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances
of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482
Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court
and/or to secure the ends of justice.
3 of 6
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 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,
4 of 6
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).
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 betwixt 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
purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. There appears
to be no chance of conviction, thus, 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 and dissolution of
marriage, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly is
5 of 6
allowed. FIR No.0174 dated 27.09.2020 (Annexure P-1) under Sections
323/34/377/498-A/406 & 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Women
Police Station, NIT Faridabad, along with all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
12.01.2023
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
