Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumit Kumar Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 7 November, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145457
CRM-M-31996-2024 -1-
281 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-31996-2024
Date of Decision: 07.11.2024
Sumit Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:- Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocate with
Mr. Vaibhav Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Varun Mittal, Advocate
for respondents No.2 & 3.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
for quashing of FIR No.04 dated 07.01.2024, under Sections 409, 420, 467,
468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station DLF-II, Gurugram
on the basis of compromise deed dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P-3) entered
into between the parties.
2. FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondents
No.2 & 3 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the
intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they
resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed,
annexed as Annexure P-3. On the basis of the compromise, petitioner is
invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of
these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the
Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145457
arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 14.08.2024 directed the parties to
appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their
statements, as contended before the Court, and the Trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
4. In pursuance to the same, learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gurugram has sent the report dated 19.10.2024 to this Court.
With the report, he has also annexed the original statement of
complainants/respondents No.2 & 3, namely, Ankur Garg and Neha Garg;
statement of petitioner, namely, Sumit Kumar Gupta recorded on
01.10.2024. On the basis of the statements, learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gurugram has concluded in the report that the compromise
effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and the same is not the
result of any fraud or misrepresentation and is the result of free Will of the
parties. It has been mentioned therein that the petitioner was not declared as
proclaimed offender in this case. It has been further mentioned in the report
that as per report of ASI Rajvir (though copy of report not enclosed) there
were six other accused persons namely, Rachit Aggarwal, Megha Aggarwal,
Supernova Naturals Pvt. Ltd., Vheals Medical Services Pvt. Ltd., Wenives
Services Pvt. Ltd. and Satender Kumar Gupta have also been arrayed as
accused in the present FIR.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gurugram.
6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S.
would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145457
to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 B.N.S.S.
is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for
compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
7. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and
the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the
continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others
Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and
others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases
675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt
with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.
8. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of
Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with
the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of
the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para
61 of the judgment reads as under:-
"61. 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145457
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
pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High
Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of
the compromise between the offender and the victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of the criminal case would put the 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145457
compromise between the victim and the 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
the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
9. Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora
of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have
entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be
merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the
prayer of the petitioner by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of
justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under
Section 528 of B.N.S.S.
10. As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls
within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence,
FIR No.04 dated 07.01.2024, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station DLF-II, Gurugram is hereby
quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of compromise. Needless to say that
the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the
compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.
11. Petition stands allowed.
07.11.2024 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
ps-I JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
