Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjeet Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 22 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138566
CRM-M-34071-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
269 CRM-M-34071-2024
Date of decision: 22nd October, 2024
Manjeet Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Nidhi Garg, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-
The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.755
dated 16.08.2022 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC, 1860 (offences
under Sections 408, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC added later on) registered at
Police Station Camp Palwal, District Palwal and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/self declaration
dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-2).
2. This Court vide order dated 23.08.2024 had directed the parties
to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded
and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the
genuineness of the compromise.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138566
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither of
the accused has been declared as a proclaimed person. However, it has come
on record that proclamation proceedings have been ordered to be initiated
against the petitioners and the same has published for 16.11.2024.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal and got their statements recorded.
On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has submitted
report dated 21.09.2024 to the effect that the compromise has been effected
between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence.
It is also mentioned in the report that apart from the petitioners, one more
accused namely, Aatish Gyakward was nominated in the present FIR who is
absconding/proclaimed person in this case. Separate statements of present
petitioners and complainant/respondent No.2 as well as the Investigating
Officer had been recorded.
5. The factum of compromise having arrived at between the
parties has not been disputed by learned State counsel as well as counsel for
respondent No.2. Learned State counsel, however, has submitted that it is a
case of partial compromise as the co-accused are not a party to the same and
it might have repercussions upon the trial. In the opinion of this Court, since
it has come on record that the compromise has been effected between the
parties to maintain peace and harmony and as there are bleak chances of
conviction of the petitioners, therefore, partial quashing or part quashing of
the FIR qua the petitioners only, can be allowed. In this regard reliance can
be placed upon the observations made by Delhi High Court in "Sunil Tomar
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138566
Vs. State of NCT of Delhi", 2022(2) Crl. CC 179 and "Lovely Salhotra
and another vs. State of NCT of Delhi", (2018) 12 SCC 391 as well as
judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in "Parambir
Singh Gill vs. Malkiat Kaur", 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 256 and "Samay
Singh vs. State of Haryana" 2023 NCPHHC 99612.
6. As per the discussion so made above, no useful purpose would
be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the
instant FIR.
7. Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment
of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and
another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10
SCC 303, this petition is allowed and FIR No.755 dated 16.08.2022 under
Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC, 1860 (offences under Sections 408, 467,
468 and 471 of IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Camp
Palwal, District Palwal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on
the basis of compromise dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-2) are quashed qua
the petitioners herein only.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
22nd October, 2024
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
