Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tek Chand @ Tek Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 May, 2013
CRM-M No.11088 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R.M-M No.11088 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 29.05.2013
Tek Chand @ Tek Ram and others
...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Preeti Choudhary, A.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 7.
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of cross-case in F.I.R. No.401 dated 21.10.2005 registered under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise effected between the parties, which is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition.
CRM-M No.11088 of 2013 (O&M) -2-
On 11.04.2013 the following contention was noticed:-
"Learned counsel states that in the cross case notice of motion has been issued and parties have been directed to be present before the Appellate Court on 29.04.2013. Let the statements with regard to this case be also recorded before the Appellate Court on the same date."
Thereafter, the report of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karnal has been received whereby he has mentioned that the parties appeared before him and attested to the fact that a compromise has indeed taken place between them and that the compromise has been executed voluntarily and without any pressure.
Learned State counsel has submitted that in this case, the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise as the petitioners stood convicted by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal for the aforesaid offence vide judgment dated 09/10.07.2012. She has submitted that the compromise has been arrived on 04.11.2012 i.e., after the petitioners stood convicted. She has further submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence is pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karnal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties can compromise the matter even during the pendency of appeal. To support his argument, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another reported in 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 910 wherein it was held that the continuation of criminal proceedings on the CRM-M No.11088 of 2013 (O&M) -3- parties entering into compromise during the pendency of appeal would be an abuse of the process of law and the FIR lodged in that case was quashed.
The contested decisions made by the courts may leave scars on the litigants losing the battle. In a decision based on compromise, none is a loser and, therefore, it does not leave any such scar. Compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute but also restores tranquility in the society. Taking restoration of peace and harmonious relations between the parties and order in the society as the prime concerns of law, it has been held by this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 that a non-compoundable matrimonial offence could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. However, the said decision left a gap as it did not cover the cases other than the cases for matrimonial offences. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2007(3) R.C.R. (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited before me a latest decision of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others Crl. Misc. No.M-28849 of 2012 Vs. Radhika and another, reported in 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 9. It was a case for an offence punishable under section 394 IPC and was not less serious than the case in hand. In that case, FIR was quashed on the basis of compromise.
Though, the quashing of the FIR, after the case reached the stage of appeal, in Dr. Arvind Barsaul's case (supra) was in a matrimonial offence, yet no difference can be drawn in the present case on the ground CRM-M No.11088 of 2013 (O&M) -4- that it is an assault case. The parties are residents of the same locality and they have buried their differences and the compromise would bring cordial atmosphere between them. Placing reliance upon the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Dr. Arvind Barsaul's case (supra), I accept the petition and quash the cross-case in F.I.R. No.401 dated 21.10.2005 registered under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending criminal miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
May 29, 2013 JUDGE
ashish