Rachit Agarwal & Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 16184 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rachit Agarwal & Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 4 September, 2024

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115538



CRM-M-33729-2024                   -1-


272
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM-M-33729-2024
                                               Date of Decision: 04.09.2024


Rachit Agarwal and another                                         ...Petitioners

                                 Versus


State of Haryana and others                                      ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:-     Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate
              for the petitioners.

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

              Mr. Rishab Garg, 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 452,

420 and 120-B IPC to which Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC added

lateron, registered at Police Station DLF-II, District Gurugram along with all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise

dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P-2) entered into between the parties.

2. FIR in question was got registered by complainants-respondents

No.2 and 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-2. On the basis of the compromise, petitioners are

invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115538

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.

3. This Court vide order dated 18.07.2024 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, Gurugram has sent the report dated 21.08.2024 to this Court.

With the report learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram has

also annexed the original joint statement of respondents No.2 & 3 - Ankur

Garg and Neha Garg (complainants); joint statement of petitioners, namely,

Rachit Agarwal and Megha Agarwal, recorded on 14.08.2024 and as per

report, it has been verified by ASI Ravinder that except the above named

accused persons, five other accused persons namely, Supernova Naturals

Pvt. Ltd. Vheals Medical Services Pvt. Ltd., Wenives Services Pvt. Ltd,

Sumit Gupta and Satender Kumar Gupta were also arrayed as accused in the

present FIR. 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 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 petitioners were not

declared proclaimed offenders in this case.

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

and the report sent by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Gurugram.

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115538

6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. 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 320 Cr.P.C. is

equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for

compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.

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

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115538

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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115538

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."

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 482 Cr.P.C.

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 452, 420 and 120-B IPC to

which Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC added lateron, registered at

Police Station DLF-II, District Gurugram along with all consequential

proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua 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.

11. Petition stands allowed.

04.09.2024                                         (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
ps-I                                                      JUDGE
             Whether speaking/reasoned:          Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:                 Yes/No


                                        5 of 5