Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Gupta And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 11 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118672
CRM-M No.1008 of 2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:118672
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
266
CRM-M No.1008 of 2022 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 11th SEPTEMBER, 2023
Sanjay Gupta and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present : Ms. Kashish Kalra, Advocate for
Mr. Ajit Singh Lamba, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Krishan K.Chahal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Sukhveer S.Killianwali, Advocate for
Mr. Ankit Bishnoi, 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.245 dated 03.07.2020
registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') at Police Station Adampur, District Hisar
and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. Reply by way of affidavit of Kaptan Singh, HPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Hisar filed in the Registry is taken on record.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118672
CRM-M No.1008 of 2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:118672
3. Vide order dated 08.05.2023, 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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar dated
19.07.2023, has been received, wherein, it has been noticed that the
parties have settled the dispute amicably without any undue influence,
coercion or pressure and none of the accused have been declared as
proclaimed offender.
4. 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.
5. 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
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118672
CRM-M No.1008 of 2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:118672
prescribes punishment, severe punishments and the extreme punishments,
including death penalty for criminal acts.
6. 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
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
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118672
CRM-M No.1008 of 2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:118672
procedure. Hence the need for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High
Court.
7. 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 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 above mentioned 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.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118672
CRM-M No.1008 of 2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:118672
8. 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
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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118672
CRM-M No.1008 of 2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:118672
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 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."
9. The present case does not fall in anyone of the exceptions
envisaged above. Hence, in view of the report of Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Hisar dated 19.07.2023 made in pursuance of the order dated
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118672
CRM-M No.1008 of 2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:118672
08.05.2023 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.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.245
dated 03.07.2020 registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471
of the IPC at Police Station Adampur, District Hisar and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the present
petitioners on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
11th SEPTEMBER, 2023 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
'sandeep' JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No
Whether Reportable: Yes No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118672
7 of 7
