Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 September, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117908
CRM-M-17452-2024 -1-
257 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-17452-2024
Date of Decision: 09.09.2024
Ram Kumar ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Nirmal Singh Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sunil Duggal, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of FIR No.437 dated 12.11.2023 registered under
Sections 406, 420 IPC, at Police Station Thensar City, District Kurukshetra
alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise (Annexure P-2).
2. FIR in question was lodged 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, the petitioner is 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.
3. This Court vide order dated 08.04.2024 directed the parties to
appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117908
statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
4. In pursuance to the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kurukshetra has sent report dated 15.06.2024. With the report, he has
annexed the original joint statement of respondent No.2-complainant
Aakash and petitioner-accused, namely, Ram Kumar, statement of
respondent No.3 Laxmi (victim) and also statement of ASI Naresh Kumar
recorded on 11.06.2024. On the basis of statements, learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kurukshetra has concluded in its report that the compromise
between the parties is genuine and is not result of any pressure or coercion
in any manner. It is further mentioned in the report that there is only one
accused in the present FIR, who is neither involved in any other case nor
has been declared proclaimed offender.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties
have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the FIR
lodged against the petitioner quashed and as such the present petition is
liable to be accepted.
6. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and has also pleaded no
objection, if the present FIR is quashed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra.
8. 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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117908
compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
9. 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.
10. 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 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117908
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 a 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 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117908
to quash the criminal proceeding."
11. 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, in the nature of cases as prescribed 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 482 Cr.P.C.
12. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in
hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial
precedents and hence, FIR No.437 dated 12.11.2023 registered under
Sections 406, 420 IPC, at Police Station Thensar City, District Kurukshetra
alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby
quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
13. 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. Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
09.09.2024 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
