Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harish Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 17 January, 2023
CRM-M-7033-2020 -1-
264 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7033-2020
Date of Decision:17.01.2023
HARISH KUMAR AND ORS ......... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Himanshu, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
of FIR No. 490, dated 20.04.2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 and
354 of IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Jagadhri City, District
Yamuna Nagar, (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/ affidavit dated
24.10.2019 (Annexure P-2).
In terms of order dated 17.02.2020 of this Court, learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri has
submitted his report dated 20.05.2020. The relevant extracts of the
report are as below :-
"i) In the abovesaid FIR, SI Satpal Singh no.416,
Investigating Officer (IO) of this case was called and
his statement was recorded by this court on 18-5-
2020. Statement of IO is Annexure-I (Annexed
herewith in original). As per statement of IO, there
are total five accused persons.
1 of 7
ii) As per statement of SI Satpal Singh IO, none of
the accused persons has been declared as proclaimed
offender in the present case.
ii) As per report of Criminal Ahlmad, the present
case is fixed for prosecution evidence and till now no
prosecution witness has been examined in the present
case.
iv) In the present case complainant parties i.e. (1)
Neeru (complainant), (2) Diverson (father of
complainant) and (3) Usha (mother of Complainant)
and accused persons i.e. (1) Harish Kumar, (2)
Bachan Singh (3) Rammi Devi (4) Maya and (5)
Noyal Masih have appeared before the court of
undersigned on 16-3-2020 and got recorded their
separate statements. Joint statement of complainant
parties is Annexure- II and joint statements of
accused persons is Annexure-III (Annexed herewith in
original).
As per statement of complainant party matter
between the complainant and accused persons has
been compromised and complainant and accused
Harish Kumar have filed divorce petition before the
competent court of law by mutual consent and their
first motion statement has already been recorded. It
has been stated by the complainant party that matter
has been compromised with their own free will,
voluntarily and Without any pressure of any kind.
Now, there is no dispute between the complainant and
accused and complainant party has no objection if the
FIR is quashed against all the accused. In the similar
manner, accused party has given statement that
matter between them has been compromised
voluntarily out of their own free will and without any
pressure of any kind and accused party has requested
2 of 7
that FIR be quashed against all the accused. From
the statements of complainant party and accused
party, it appears that matter between both the parties
has been compromised voluntarily without any
pressure of any kind from any corner and
compromise effected between them is genuine one.
It is further to be noted that complainant party
was identified by Shri Harvinder Aneja, Advocate and
accused party was identified by Shri Dinesh Sharma,
Advocate. Had there been any pressure of any kind on
any of the persons, who had given statements before
this court, then he or she could bring to notice of this
court about that fact, but none of the persons, who
had given statements on 16-3-2020 had stated that he
or she was under pressure of any kind! Had the
complainant party or accused party been under any
pressure and had they been hesitant to bring to the
notice about this fact to this coutt, they could at least
bring to the notice about the pressure in the
knowledge of their respective counsels, but even the
respective counsels of both the parties have not stated
before this court that any of the persons/party is
under pressure of any kind.
In these circumstances, it is concluded that the
statements of the parties are bona fide and are not
fesult of any threat, duress or coercion in any manner
and hence compromise effected between the parties is
genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or
undue influence and is valid one."
Statement of Investigating Officer was recorded by Trial
Court and said statement is part of report dated 20.05.2020 submitted by
learned Trial Court.
Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating
3 of 7
Officer 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 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.
4 of 7
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
5 of 7
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
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
6 of 7
over burdened.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the present
petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed.
FIR No. 490, dated 20.04.2018, under Sections 498A, 323,
506 and 354 of IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Jagadhri City,
District Yamuna Nagar, (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
17.01.2023
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
