Ravikant And Others vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 19883 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ravikant And Others vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 11 November, 2024

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146549



CRM-M-35755-2024                   -1-



287         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM-M-35755-2024
                                               Date of Decision: 11.11.2024

Ravikant and others                                                ...Petitioners
                                 Versus


State of Haryana and others                                      ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:- Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana..

Mr. Jitender K. Sehrawat, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)

1. Instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.146

dated 18.06.2016, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452 and 506 IPC registered

at Police Station Khol, District Rewari and all the subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (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, petitioners are

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

arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146549

3. This Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 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 Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Rewari has sent the report dated 30.08.2024/07.11.2024 to this

Court. With the report, she has also annexed the original statement of

complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Naresh, respondent No.3, namely,

Munni Devi; statement of petitioners, namely, Ravikant, Santosh, Bhart

Bhushan, Vikrant, Ramgiri and Lali. She has also annexed the report of ASI

Mahender Singh and photocopy of separate statement of respondent No.4,

namely, Sunita recorded on 06.11.2024. On the basis of the statements,

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari has concluded in the

report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine,

voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence and is not the result

of any fraud and misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the

parties. It has been mentioned therein that one case was registered against

petitioner No.2, namely, Santosh Kumar and that case was also decided,

being compromised.

5. Reply by way of affidavit of Mr. Karan Singh Sandhu, PPS,

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Kharar-1, District SAS

Nagar has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State, in the Court today,

same is taken on record.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record

and the report sent by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari.

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146549

7. 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

compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

8. 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.

9. 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

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146549

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 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

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146549

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 jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

10. 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 petitioners 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.

11. 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.146 dated 18.06.2016, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452 and 506

IPC registered at Police Station Khol, District Rewari and all the subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners 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.

12. Petition stands allowed.

11.11.2024                                         (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
ps-I                                                      JUDGE
             Whether speaking/reasoned:          Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:                 Yes/No


                                        5 of 5