Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Alias Sanju And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143507
CRM-M-48726-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
279 CRM-M-48726-2024
Date of Decision : November 05, 2024
SANJAY ALIAS SANJU AND ORS
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.
Ms. Palkin Bhardwaj, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition, as cast under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,
proffers the hereinafter extracted relief, as craved by the petitioners,
inasmuch as, quashing of the FIR No.0105 dated 30.4.2018, under Sections
294 and 506 of the IPC, and offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 added lateron, registered at P.S. Sector-
37, Gurugram, District Gurugram and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of a compromise dated 21.9.2024 (Annexure P-2), as
entered into inter se the petitioners and respondent No.2/complainant.
2. Upon an affirmative response from the learned counsel for
respondent No.2/complainant qua the compromise dated 21.9.2024
(Annexure P-2), this Court had, through an order drawn on 27.9.2024, upon
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143507
the instant petition, besides issuing notice, directed the parties to appear
before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned, for getting their
respective statements recorded qua authenticity of the compromise dated
21.9.2024 (Annexure P-2). Moreover, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate
concerned was also directed to send a report in the above regard.
3. Consequent to the making of the directions (supra), the parties
appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram and got
their respective statements recorded, thereby authenticating the compromise
dated 21.9.2024 (Annexure P-2). Accordingly, in compliance of the
directions (supra) of this Court, a Report bearing No.815 dated 27.10.2024
has been received from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram,
wherein, a satisfaction has been recorded by the Magistrate concerned qua
the compromise (supra) being drawn in a genuine and voluntary and without
any pressure or coercion and out of free will of the parties.
4. This Court have heard counsel for the parties and gone through
the case file.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of "Narinder Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and other", (2014) 6 Supreme court cases 466.
The relevant paragraph of this judgment is extracted hereinafter:-
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down
the following principles by which the High Court would be
guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between
the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the
Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction
to continue with the criminal proceedings:
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143507
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to
compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt,
under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent
power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases
which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the
matter between themselves. However, this power is to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that
basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the
guiding factor in a such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While
exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on
either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity
or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly,
for the offences alleged to have been committed under special
statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity are
not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between
the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed
when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among
themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine
as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143507
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category
of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally
treated as crime against the society and not against the
individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC
in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would
be open to the High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved,
would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For
this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the
nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the
vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc.
Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can
generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie
analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a
strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are
remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the
Settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the
latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept
the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed
by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to
result in harmony between them which may improve their future
relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section
482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role.
Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after
the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the
settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143507
because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still
on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those
cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start
or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima
facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned
above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is
almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the
matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court
should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the
Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to
decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as
to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or
not a Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already
recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate
stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the
parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in
acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the
trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and
conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore,
there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a
crime."
6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in CRM-M-25669-2020
(O&M), titled "Abhishek Singh & others V/s State of Punjab & others",
Pronounced on: 07.04.2022, while granting a similar relief, as craved in the
instant petition, has observed as under:-
"9. The following aspects would be relevant to conclude
this petition:-
a) The accused and the private respondents have amicably
settled the matter between them in terms of the
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143507
compromise deed and the statements recorded before the
concerned Court;
b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement
has not been secured through coercion, threats, social
boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means;
c) The victim has willingly consented to the nullification of
criminal proceedings;
d) There is no objection from the private respondents in
case present FIR and consequent proceedings are
quashed;
e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public
peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social
and moral fabric of the society or involve matters
concerning public policy;
f) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will.
The pendency of trial affects career and happiness;
g) There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider
the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, or
professional offender;
h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in
nature and to work to bring peace to family, community,
and society;
i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing the
conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings is
justified to secure the ends of justice."
7. In the light of the hereinabove recorded aspects and considering
the fact that the offences, for which the petitioners/accused have been
charged, are not of grave in nature, as also in view of the law laid down in
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543
and Kulwinder Singh, others Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (Criminal)
1052, the present petition for quashing the FIR (supra) is hereby allowed.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143507
8. Resultantly, FIR No.0105 dated 30.4.2018, under Sections 294
and 506 of the IPC, and offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities Act) 1989 added lateron, registered at P.S. Sector-37, Gurugram,
District Gurugram and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are,
hereby, quashed on the basis of a compromise dated 21.9.2024 (Annexure
P-2), subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal
Services Authority concerned.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
November 05, 2024 JUDGE
ajay-1
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
7 of 7
