Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandan Singh And Anothers vs State Of Haryana on 29 November, 2010
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
Crl. Misc.No.M 30342 of 2010 # 1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc.No.M 30342 of 2010
Date of Decision:-29.11.2010
Chandan Singh and anothers
......Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.
Present:- Mr. S.S.Sidhu, Advocate for
Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate
for the Petitioners.
Mr. Mahabir Sindhu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.
Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.193 dated 24.03.2003 under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad as well as subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
As per allegations in the FIR, on 22.03.2003 at around 6 o'clock, a quarrel took place between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 in which, petitioner No.1 gave two knife blows on the person of petitioner No.2. Thereafter the present FIR was registered.
Vide order dated 13.10.2010, learned trial Court was directed to Crl. Misc.No.M 30342 of 2010 # 2# record the statements of the parties and send the report with regard to compromise, in pursuance of which, a report/letter dated 09.11.2010 has been received from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, which is taken on record as Mark 'A'. It is stated in the report that the complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioners-accused and he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed against the petitioners.
From the report submitted it is evident that the dispute between the petitioners-accused and the complainant, who are co-villagers, has been amicably resolved by entering into compromise wherein the complainant has stated that he has no objection if the present FIR against the petitioners- accused is quashed.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from ASI Brahm Parkash states that he is unable to raise any serious objection to the quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise since the complainant is not willing to support the prosecution case.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675 B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has also held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non-
Crl. Misc.No.M 30342 of 2010 # 3# compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:-
"The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice."
Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T. 2008(9) S.C. 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise.
Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:-
"We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common Crl. Misc.No.M 30342 of 2010 # 4# sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties, who are co-villagers, have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.193 dated 24.03.2003 under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 29th November, 2010 Gagan