Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hemant Goel vs State Ut Chandigarh And Another on 7 November, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145403
CRM-M-40245-2024 -1-
285 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40245-2024
Date of Decision: 07.11.2024
Hemant Goel ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:- Mr. N.S. Gill, Advocate with
Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P., U.T. Chandigarh and
Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.1-U.T. Chandigarh.
Mr. K.S. Saini, Advocate for Mr. Anil Saini, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
for quashing of FIR No.95 dated 12.10.2017, under Sections 279 and 337
IPC and Section 338 of IPC, 3/181 Motor Vehicle Act (added lateron),
registered at Police Station Sector-49, Chandigarh and all the subsequent
proceedings arising thereto on the basis of compromise deed dated
10.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) entered into between the parties.
2. FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent
No.2 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-2. 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
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145403
Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 21.08.2024 directed the parties to
appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording their statements, as
contended before the Court, and the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was also directed
to send its report.
4. In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Chandigarh has sent the report dated 07.10.2024 to this Court. With the
report, she has also annexed the original statement of
complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Raman Komal; statement of
petitioner, namely, Hemant Goel recorded on 01.10.2024. She has also
annexed the original statement of HC Shamsher Singh, recorded on
04.10.2024. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Chandigarh 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 the same has been arrived between the
parties without any undue influence or pressure. It has been mentioned
therein that the petitioner was not declared as proclaimed offender in this
case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh.
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
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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145403
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
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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145403
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
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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145403
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.95 dated 12.10.2017, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and Section
338 of IPC, 3/181 Motor Vehicle Act (added lateron), registered at Police
Station Sector-49, Chandigarh and all the subsequent proceedings arising
thereto are 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
