Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohit Arora And Others vs State Of Ut Chandigarh And Another on 27 February, 2023
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=
CRM-M-35527-2021 -1-
247 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-35527-2021
Date of Decision: 27.02.2023
Rohit Arora and others ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of UT and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Kumar Lambdharia, Addl. PP, UT, Chandigarh.
Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate for
Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.365 dated 25.11.2017, registered under Sections 323, 368, 506 IPC and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act (Sections 363, 365 IPC added lateron and Sections 363 IPC and 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act deleted lateron), at Police Station Central Sector-17, District Chandigarh alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 08.03.2021 (Annexure P-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 petitioners are 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.
1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 03:23:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CRM-M-35527-2021 -2- This Court vide order dated 20.09.2021 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
In pursuance to the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh has sent its report dated 12.10.2021 to this Court. With the report, he has also annexed the photocopies of the statement of respondent No.2-complainant Gaurav Kapoor and joint statements of petitioners No.1 to No.3, namely, Rohit Arora, Ram Kishan @ Ram and Rubaljit Singh recorded on 29.09.2021 and statement of petitioner No.4 (through VC) and Inspector Juldaan Singh recorded on 04.10.2021. On the basis of the statements, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh has concluded in its report that the compromise appears to be genuine and effected without any fear, pressure or undue influence. It is further mentioned in the report that there are only four accused in the present case i.e. the present petitioners. It is further mentioned in the report that neither the accused have been declared as proclaimed offender nor any criminal case is pending against them.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR in question was registered on the misunderstanding between both the sides. He submits that during the investigation offence under Sections 363 IPC and 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, were deleted and thus, as on date, the FIR is for the offence under Sections 323, 368, 365 and 506 IPC. He submits that the investigation is complete and with the intervention of the respectables, both the sides have resolved all the outstanding issues amicably. He further submits that in these circumstances, prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 03:23:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CRM-M-35527-2021 -3- Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has affirmed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that all the outstanding issues have been resolved amicably and he has no objection, if the present FIR is quashed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; has held as under:-
"31. 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:
(I) to (IV) ............................
(V) 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."
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.
Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 03:23:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CRM-M-35527-2021 -4- continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including 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.
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 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 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 03:23:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CRM-M-35527-2021 -5- 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 to quash the criminal proceeding."
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 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 03:23:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CRM-M-35527-2021 -6- 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.
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.365 dated 25.11.2017, registered under Sections 323, 368, 506 IPC and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act (Sections 363, 365 IPC added lateron and Sections 363 IPC and 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act deleted lateron), at Police Station Central Sector-17, District Chandigarh alongwith subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
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)
27.02.2023 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 03:23:22 :::