Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh Alias Samar Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 September, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
CRM-M-64266-2023 1
270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-64266-2023
Date of Decision: 05.09.2024
JAGJIT SINGH ALIAS SAMAR SINGH
.....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Manvender Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
KIRTI SINGH, J.(Oral)
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for
quashing of FIR No.0243 dated 07.10.2023, under Sections 406, 420, 370 IPC
and Section 24 of Emigration Act, 1983 registered at Police Station Naggal,
District Ambala along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on
the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case
file.
3. This Court vide order dated 09.05.2024, directed the parties to
appear before the Area Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements with
regard to the compromise.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 22.05.2024 has been
received from the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ambala. A perusal of the
said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded
KAVITA NAIN in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between
them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. The
compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and
coercion.
5. The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs.
State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that High Court has power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable
offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court is of the view that the
same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial
disputes alone.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had observed that in order
to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent
power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a
compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said
judgment reads thus:-
"57. 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.
xxx xxx xxx. "
7. In view of the afore-referred judgments, perusing the report of the
trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioner and the
complainant, this Court finds that quashing the FIR will accord a quietus to all
disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to bury the
hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in
continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal
proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed.
8. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.0243 dated
07.10.2023, under Sections 406, 420, 370 IPC and Section 24 of Emigration Act,
1983 registered at Police Station Naggal, District Ambala and all other
consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of the
compromise (Annexure P-2), subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- to be
deposited in Poor Patient Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh within a period of
one month.
(KIRTI SINGH)
05.09.2024 JUDGE
Kavita Nain
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
