Balwinder Kaur And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 16167 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balwinder Kaur And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 September, 2024

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115353



CRM-M-27500-2024


                                               - 1-

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

282
                                                      CRM-M-27500-2024
                                                      Date of decision: 04.09.2024

BALWINDER KAUR AND ORS                                              ....Petitioners

                                 Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                          ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present :    Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.

             Ms. Kamlesh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral)

1. The instant petition filed 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.338 dated 29.07.2022, under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC,

registered at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal, along with all the

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise dated

24.04.2024 (Annexure P-2), as entered into inter se the petitioners and the

respondent No.2.

2. Upon an affirmative response from the learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 qua the compromise dated 24.04.2024 (Annexure P-2), this Court

through an order drawn on 28.05.2024, upon the instant petition, 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 24.04.2024

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115353

CRM-M-27500-2024

- 2-

(Annexure P-2). Moreover, the learned 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal, and got their respective statements

recorded, thereby authenticating the compromise dated 24.04.2024 (Annexure P-2).

Accordingly, in compliance of the directions (supra) of this Court, a Report bearing

No.46 dated 15.06.2024, has been received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Karnal, wherein, a satisfaction has been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Karnal qua the compromise (supra) being drawn in a genuine and voluntary

manner, without any coercion or undue influence. However, the statement of

petitioner No.3, namely Surender Singh @ Kala, has been recorded through Special

Power of Attorney, his mother Balwinder Kaur, petitioner No.1.

4. This Court has heard counsel for the parties and gone through the case

file.

5. Gainful reference can be made to the hereinafter extracted relevant

paragraph of the judgment rendered by 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:-

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:

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

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115353

CRM-M-27500-2024

- 3-

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 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

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115353

CRM-M-27500-2024

- 4-

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 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,

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115353

CRM-M-27500-2024

- 5-

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. The above principle gets reiterated in the case of "State of Madhya

Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019)", 5 Supreme court cases 688,

wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;

15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;

15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115353

CRM-M-27500-2024

- 6-

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 framing 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove".

7. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakuntla Sawhney

(Mrs) Vs. Kaushalya (Mrs.) and others (1980) 1 SCC 63, speaking through

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, has held as under:-

"4. ....The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or re- union....."

8. Considering the facts of the present case as well as the principle of law

laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be futile to drag the present

proceedings, as continuation of the criminal proceedings, despite settlement and

compromise, would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, 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 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 and others Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3)

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115353

CRM-M-27500-2024

- 7-

RCR (Criminal) 1052, the present petition for quashing the FIR (supra) is hereby

allowed. The FIR No.338 dated 29.07.2022, under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC,

registered at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal, along with all the consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed, on the basis of the compromise

dated 24.04.2024 (Annexure P-2), subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, to

be forthwith deposited with the District Legal Services Authority concerned.

                                                     (KULDEEP TIWARI)
04.09.2024                                               JUDGE
amandeep
             Whether speaking/reasoned.              :   Yes/No
             Whether Reportable.                     :   Yes/No




                                     7 of 7