Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lalit Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 24 July, 2018
Author: Arvind Singh Sangwan
Bench: Arvind Singh Sangwan
CRM-M No.23526 of 2018 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.23526 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided on: 24.07.2018
Lalit Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present : Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Parveen Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. K. Arun Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.578 dated 01.09.2014, for offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 452, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties as well as the order dated 21.02.2015 (Annexure P1), vide which the petitioners have been declared as proclaimed offenders.
Vide order dated 30.05.2018, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of the compromise.
As per the report of the trial Court dated 15.06.2018, there 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2018 03:19:34 ::: CRM-M No.23526 of 2018 (O&M) 2 were 07 accused persons, out of which one accused - Saurav had faced the trial and was convicted vide judgment dated 07.02.2018 whereas the present petitioners, who in compliance of the order dated 30.05.2018, had appeared before the trial Court and were granted interim bail and have made their statement in support of the compromise. The complainant/respondent No.2 - Manish along with one Satish Tongar (injured witness) have also appeared before the trial Court and have deposed that they have entered into a valid compromise dated 11.04.2018 and they have signed the compromise as well as their respective affidavit of their own free will, without any pressure or coercion and they do not have any grudge against the petitioners and they do not want to proceed further and they have no objection, if the present FIR No.578 dated 01.09.2014, is quashed.
Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and in pursuance of the order dated 30.05.2018, the petitioners have already appeared before the trial Court and were released on interim bail and thus, the order dated 21.02.2015 (Annexure P1) may be set-aside and the FIR No.578 dated 01.09.2014, be quashed.
Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Manoj Kumar and assisted with counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2018 03:19:35 ::: CRM-M No.23526 of 2018 (O&M) 3 "Kulwinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is 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 feel 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.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held as under:-
"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. 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 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2018 03:19:35 ::: CRM-M No.23526 of 2018 (O&M) 4 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2018 03:19:35 ::: CRM-M No.23526 of 2018 (O&M) 5 the criminal proceedings to continue.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed, the order dated 21.02.2015 (Annexure P1) is set- aside and the FIR No.578 dated 01.09.2014, for offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 452, 307 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Faridabad.
(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE
24.07.2018
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2018 03:19:35 :::