Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay @ Shahjad @ Irfan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 14 December, 2022
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
CRM-M-39458-2022 1
253 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-39458-2022
Date of decision : 14.12.2022
VIJAY @ SHAHJAD @ IRFAN AND ANOTHER
....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. R.K. Ambavta, AAG, Haryana
for respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Divya Jyoti, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.0156 dated 19.07.2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 34 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sushant Lok, District Gurgaon (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.
2. On 02.09.2022, the following order was passed :-
"The present petition has been moved invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners facing trial in FIR No.0156 dated 19.07.2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 34 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sushant Lok, District Gurgaon.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter already stands compromised vide compromise dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure P-2).
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2022 05:57:25 ::: CRM-M-39458-2022 2 Notice of motion for 14.12.2022.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana, who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the State.
Ms. Divya Jyoti, Advocate appears for respondents No.2 and admits the fact of there being compromise between the parties.
In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 10.10.2022.
On their doing so, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record their statements and furnish its report to this Court by the next date of hearing on the following aspects:-
1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR.
2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender?
3. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence?
4. Whether the accused persons are involved in any other case or not?
5. The trial Court is also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR.
A copy of the report be also sent to the Registrar Judicial of this Court.
Needless to say that in case for any reason the statements are not recorded on the aforesaid date, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall be at liberty to call the parties on any other date but not later than a week thereafter. "
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from ACJM, Gurugram dated 14.10.2022 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"1) As per the record and statement of IO concerned, two accused persons namely Vijay @ Shejad son of Mohd. Jagar @ Bholu and Dr. Rehman @ Shaukat Ali have been arrayed as accused in the present FIR; 2) As per record/statement of investigating officer, none of the above said accused is declared proclaimed offender; 3) As per the statements of the parties and 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2022 05:57:25 ::: CRM-M-39458-2022 3 compromise Ex.C1, the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without an coercion or undue influence; 4) As per record/statement of investigating officer, none of the above mentioned accused is involved in any other case; 5) As per record/statement of investigating officer, in the present FIR one Geetika Punchhi wife of Sh. Sumit Punchhi resident of D-41 The Icon, DLF Phase-5, Gurugram is the only victim/complainant in the present FIR; III) as per record/ statement of investigating officer, in the present FIR/case investigation is still pending and challan has not been filed before the Court; As per the statements of the parties and compromise Ex.C1, the compromise effected between the parties is genuine voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence and both of them are party to the compromise/settlement deed dated 27.07.2022 Ex.C1;"
4. Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that she has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
5. Similarly Ld. State Counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
7. After considering judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2022 05:57:25 ::: CRM-M-39458-2022 4 Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021), the proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Court and this Court is :
(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is not affected by Section 320 of the Code.
(b) However, wider the power greater the caution.
(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.
(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.
(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2022 05:57:25 ::: CRM-M-39458-2022 5
(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise.
8. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as :-
(i) The present matter does not fall within the exceptions as carved out in Laxmi Narayan's case (supra).
(ii) The offences are of private nature.
(iii) The parties have compromised.
(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be
voluntary in its nature.
(v) Complainant/victim has entered into compromise on
his own volition.
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.0156 dated 19.07.2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 34 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sushant Lok, District Gurgaon (Annexure P-1) and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.
December 14, 2022 (PANKAJ JAIN)
Dpr JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2022 05:57:25 :::