Gaurav Makkar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 19253 P&H

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142213




                                                             2023:PHHC:142213
                                                                                -1-
CRM-M-40550-2023


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

269                                           CRM-M-40550-2023
                                              Date of decision: 07.11.2023

GAURAV MAKKAR AND ORS                                              ...Petitioners

                                    Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER                                      ...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT

Present:-   Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Sanjiv Singh Rao, Advocate,
            for respondent No.2.

                  ****

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.271 dated 29.04.2022,

registered under Sections 34, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal

Code, at Police Station Sector 8, District Faridabad and all consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at

between the parties.

2. Vide order dated 18.08.2023, the parties were directed to

appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their

statements recorded; as to the genuineness of the compromise. In

compliance thereof, report of Civil Judge(JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Faridababd, dated 23.08.2023, has been received, wherein, it has

been noticed that the parties have settled the dispute amicably without any

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142213

2023:PHHC:142213

CRM-M-40550-2023

undue influence, coercion or pressure and none of the accused have been

declared as proclaimed offender.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Anita Maria Dias and

another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2018 (1) R.C.R.

(Criminal) 983, to contend that even the offence under Sections 420, 467,

471 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise.

4. The ultimate aim, objective and goal of a legal system is to

reconcile the social conflicts. Law is required only to ensure that people do

not have to fight with each other just to protect their right to property, right

to life and liberty and other rights secured to them by the legal system. The

civil disputes are the conflicts between two parties, having lesser overtones

for the social order, social harmony or the society as such. Hence absolute

freedom is given to the parties to settle their disputes by compromises, of

course, coming with certain legal consequences as well. However, the

criminal disputes do not necessarily restrict themselves to only two parties

to the dispute in terms of their scope, consequences and effect. The

criminal acts tend to cast their effect and consequences even upon the

society at large. Therefore, the law prescribes punishment, severe

punishments and the extreme punishments, including death penalty for

criminal acts.

5. However, more often then not the civil disputes or inter-se

conflicts of two parties transforms themselves into criminal aspect.

Therefore, the legal system plays empire to resolve the conflict between

two parties; with the added task of ensuring that the adverse impact of

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142213

2023:PHHC:142213

CRM-M-40550-2023

dispute qua society at large is minimized. But still the core idea is to

resolve the conflict between two sides by putting it to rest. Therefore, even

the criminal law is required to give due regard to the wishes of the parties

to dispute. Recognizing this principle only, the Indian legal System also

provides for recognizing the compromise between two sides of a criminal

dispute. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is an express provision in this regard. This

section not only provides for compounding during the trial, but permits

compounding even at appellate or revisional stage. However by its very

nature and scope, Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole repository;

wherein the recognition to a compromise between the parties have;

necessarily; to be confined. This section relates only to the offences

prescribed under the Indian Penal Code. There are a lot more offences

prescribed outside IPC. Even to the offences existing in the IPC new

dimensions are added from time to time, making the existing offences to be

lighter or stringent and even new modalities of proof of offences are being

recognised in view of technological advancement. This necessitates and

requires the need for looking beyond Section 320 Cr.P.C. to recognise the

compromise between the parties to dispute. But to maintain the sanctity of

the procedure prescribed for criminal trial; the Trial Court cannot be

permitted to travel beyond the scope prescribed under that procedure.

Hence the need for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court.

6. But, as observed above, the wishes of only parties to the

criminal dispute would not always be sufficient to terminate a criminal trial

in view of the patent, latent or subtle effect; their conduct would have left

qua the society at large. Therefore the offences committed by persons

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142213

2023:PHHC:142213

CRM-M-40550-2023

involved in governance or administration for acquiring official power or

while exercising office power cannot be permitted to be compromised.

Likewise, even the offences involving only two private persons, but

reflecting depravity of character or involving causing intentional loss of

life or causing intentional loss of property by extending imminent threat of

loss of life; cannot be permitted to be compromised. Except the

abovementioned grave offences, there is every reason that all other

offences should be permitted to be compromised by the Court. Since the

proof of offences before the Court, again would involve the conduct of the

parties to dispute, therefore if the Court does not permit the same to be

compromised then the parties would tend to play tricks upon the Court to

ensure the acquittal of accused by subverting the administration of criminal

justice. And it is never in the interest of administration of criminal justice

to force the citizen to learn and adopt the tricks designed to be played upon

Courts to subvert the justice system. So it would always be in the interest of

justice itself; that the compromise between the parties is recognized and the

citizen remain moored and committed to the essentials of the system of

administration of justice, at least, qua those offences, which the interest of

society does not permit to be compromised.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has amply clarified the legal

position on recognizing compromising in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State

of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, and has observed as

under:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142213

2023:PHHC:142213

CRM-M-40550-2023

High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142213

2023:PHHC:142213

CRM-M-40550-2023

where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

8. The present case does not fall in anyone of the exceptions

envisaged above. Hence, in view of the report of Civil Judge(JD)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridababd, dated 23.08.2023, made in

pursuance of the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by this Court, the Court

feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings

alive. It will be in the interest of justice, if the settlement reached between

the parties is accepted.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.271 dated

29.04.2022, registered under Sections 34, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142213

2023:PHHC:142213

CRM-M-40550-2023

Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sector 8, District Faridabad, and all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the

present petitioners on the basis of compromise arrived at between the

parties.

07.11.2023                                             (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
parveen kumar                                                JUDGE

                Whether reasoned/speaking?       Yes/No
                Whether reportable?              Yes/No




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142213

                                       7 of 7