Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avinder Pal Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 January, 2023
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-29138-2022 -1-
235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-29138-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.01.2023
Avinder Pal Singh and another ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate, the petitioners.
Mr. Kirpal Singh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Vishal Sharda, 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.675 dated 26.10.2015, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, at Police Station City Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (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.
This Court vide order dated 11.07.2022 directed the parties to 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2023 11:30:43 ::: CRM-M-29138-2022 -2- 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri has sent its report dated 25.08.2022 to this Court. With the report, she has also annexed original statement of complainant-Narinder Singh and joint statements of the petitioners, namely, Avinder Pal Singh and Davender Sharma recorded on 09.08.2022, statement of accused-respondent No.3 Manoranjan Banerjee recorded on 16.08.2022 and statement of SI Surinder Kumar recorded on 23.08.2022. On the basis of the statements, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri has concluded in its report that the statements of the parties i.e. complainant-Narinder Singh and accused persons namely, Avinder Pal Singh and Davender Sharma, are bona fide, not the result if any fraud or misrepresentation and is the result of their free will and the compromise effected between them is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion, pressure or undue influence and is valid and no compromise has been effected between the complainant-Narinder Singh and accused namely Manoranjan Banerjee. It is further mentioned in the report that there are total three accused, namely, Avinder Pal Singh, Davender Sharma and Manoranjan Banerjee in the present case and none of them has been declared proclaimed offender in the present case.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.
A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2023 11:30:43 ::: CRM-M-29138-2022 -3- 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 continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; 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 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2023 11:30:43 ::: CRM-M-29138-2022 -4- 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 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 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2023 11:30:43 ::: CRM-M-29138-2022 -5- 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."
The case in hand is pre-dominatingly civil in nature. 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 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.675 dated 26.10.2015, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, at Police Station City Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, namely, Avinder Pal Singh and Davender Sharma, 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)
13.01.2023 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2023 11:30:43 :::