Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohit Rana @ Brandy And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 October, 2023
Author: Arun Monga
Bench: Arun Monga
CRM-M-17896-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:131054
279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-17896-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.10.2023
Mohit Rana @ Brandy and others ...Petitioners
VS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present:- Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate,
For the petitioners.
Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advocate,
For the complainant.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.125dated 09.03.2023(Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 of IPC and (subsequently added Section 325 and 307 of IPC) at Police Station, Sector 27, Sonipat, District Sonipat on the basis of compromise dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure P-2), stated to have been arrivedbetween the parties.
2. Since quashing was sought on the basis of compromise, this Courton 13.04.2023 had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements in support of thecompromise. A veracity report was also called for.
3. Report dated 25.05.2023 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonipat, had been received. Report reveals that statements ofcomplainant party i.e. respondents No.2 to 4 as also of accused/present petitionersherein, were duly recorded. It is opined that a compromise has been arrived atwithout any pressure, undue influence or coercion. The report is accompaniedby the statements of parties. It is apparent that the complainant/respondents No.2to 4and accused/petitioners have arrived at a compromise voluntarily and withoutany coercion.
4. On a Court query, learned counsel for the complainant submits that initially when FIR was registered, Section 307 was invoked on the statement made by VANDANA 2023.10.10 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 2 CRM-M-17896-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:131054 complainant but subsequently it turned out that injury was not a grievous and, therefore, complainant decided not to press charges under Section 307 of IPC.
5. Learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 to 4 states that hewould have no objection to the quashing of FIR in question.
6. This Court in appropriate cases can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings/FIR on the basis of compromise. A reference in this regard may be made to a decision dated 29.09.2021 of the Supreme Court in case titled "Ramgopal and anr. V. The State of Madhya Pradesh"1 and a Full Bench decision of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others"2 .
7. In the premise it is an appropriate case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to bring to an end the criminal proceedings initiated in the light of impugned FIR.
8. Petition is thus allowed. FIR No.125 dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 of IPC and (subsequently added Section 325 and 307 of IPC) at Police Station, Sector 27, Sonipat, District Sonipat and all proceedings emanating there from qua the petitioners stand quashed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
09.10.2023
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
1
Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012
2007
VANDANA (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
2023.10.10 2 10:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document Page 2 of 2