Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Kumar @ Bina And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
235
CRM-M-5351-2020(O&M)
Reserved on: 02.03.2022
Pronounced on: 10.03.2022
PARVEEN KUMAR @ BINA AND ORS
....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Argued by : Mr. Kiran Pal and Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Puneet Pali, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 7.
***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J.
By means of the instant petition, the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC has been invoked for seeking quashing of FIR No.140 dated 28.08.2019 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 427, 452 and 506 of the IPC (Sections 307 and 326 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Shahzadpur, Ambala and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 20.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) entered between parties.
2 Vide order dated 06.02.2020 of this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties and to send a report to this Court as to whether the compromise is genuine, without any pressure or undue influence and also whether any accused was declared a proclaimed offender.
3. Pursuant to the said order, the report has been received from the JMIC, Naraingarh vide Memo No.114 dated 03.03.2020. The relevant part of the 1 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:48:59 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -2 -
report reads thus:-
'With respect to the above facts, for the first information, it was made clear to the complainant/injured that they were not bound to make any statement. Their statements were recorded after asking the preliminary questions. In view of the statement of the complainant/injured and the accused persons, this Court is of the opinion that the compromise is genuine, without any pressure or undue influence. Also, it is submitted that no order with regard to the declaration of proclaimed offender of the accused persons has been passed by this Court and no application has been moved by the prosecution for issuance of proclamation of accused.'
4. On resumed hearing, learned counsel for complainant/respondent Nos.2 to 7 reiterated the settlement amongst the parties.
ARGUMENTS:
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute with the intervention of respectables from both sides and without any coercion, pressure or undue influence. Besides, the case is still at the initial stage of investigation. The parties being well known to each other and belonging to the same village have decided to sink their differences. The same is also reflected from the fact that even though the FIR in question was registered on 28th August, 2019, no untoward incident has been repeated between the parties, despite lapse of more than two and a half years since the incident. Hence, there is no subsisting ill-will amongst the parties. It is also submitted that the offence under section 307 IPC is not made out from the perusal of the FIR and the allegations levelled therein. Reliance was further placed on the Full Bench judgement of this court in the matter of Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another" reported as (Punjab and Haryana High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.
2 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -3 -
6. It was thus argued that the matter having been resolved, it would not advance any interest of justice in subjecting the petitioners to undergo the rigours of criminal trial. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners was also reciprocated by the counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/ respondent Nos.2 to 7.
7. The respondent-State had filed its reply by way of an affidavit of Amit Bhatia, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police Naraingarh, District Ambala, wherein it was alleged that Investigating Officer had collected opinion regarding the injuries sustained on victim Pradeep Kumar, pointing out that injury No.1 and 2 on the said person were grievous in nature and the injuries sustained by Deepak Raj were opined by the doctor to be 'dangerous to life' having been caused by a sharp weapon. Resultantly, Section 326 IPC and 307 IPC were added in the said case. The submission was thus made that the offence having a serious impact on society should not be quashed in exercise of power under section 482 CrPC.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and appended documents with their able assistance.
Law as Regards Compromise Quashing:
9. Reference in this regard is made to the various judgements dealing with power of quashing the FIR vested in the High Court, in the event of compromise amongst the parties. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of "Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another" reported as (Punjab and Haryana High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has been observed as under:
'(28) To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one 3 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -4 -
which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., "to prevent abuse of the process of any Court" or "to secure the ends of justice".
(29) In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and Ors., Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words:
"The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion."
(30) The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice.
(31) No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
(32) The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.
(33) The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion 4 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -5 -
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.
(34) The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.
10. The legal principles as laid down for quashing of the judgment were also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another,(2012)10 SCC303'. Still further, the broad principles for exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others verus State of Gujarat and another" (2017) 9 SCC 641', the same are extracted as under:
5 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -6 -
16.The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :
16.1 Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
16.2 The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3 In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; 16.4 While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
16.5 The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; 16.6 In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the 6 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -7 -
victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
16.7 As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; 16.8 Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
16.9 In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10 There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the recent matter of 'Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834', that the matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or the matters in which the nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public 7 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -8 -
interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted as under:-
19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.
20. Having appraised the afore-stated para-meters and weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that: Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature;
Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest; Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand dismissed; Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without 8 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -9 -
any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute(s); Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on record to evince that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired between the parties; Sixthly, since the Appellants and the complainant(s) are residents of the same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget and forgive any ill-will and have no vengeance against each other; and Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain un- effected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking at their present age.
Powers of High Court under Section 482 CrPC:
12. The powers of the High Court under 482 CrPC are intended to be invoked as extra-ordinary powers in the absence of any specific statutory provision and the same need to be activated in order to secure the ends of justice.
The same has been held in the judgment of M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque, 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 937. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
'7. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent
9 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -10 -
jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
10 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 :::
CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -11 -
8. In R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) this Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings.
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.' (Emphasis supplied)
13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami And Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal And Ors, 2007 (12) SCC 1 held as under:-
23. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
27. The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the 11 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -12 -
evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.
28. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts.
33. This court in Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary & Others (1992) 4 SCC 305 observed thus:
132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice.
Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles.' 12 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -13 -
14. It would also be pertinent to mention that co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the matter of Amarjot Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr decided on 20.11.2019 in CRM-M-6992 of 2019; a bunch petitions along with CRM-M-
27364-2017 titled as Parveen Kumar @ Rocki & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors decided on 15.12.2020; the matter of Ankit & Another Vs. State of Harayana & Ors in CRM-M-41972-2021 decided on 21.12.2021 and the matter of Mohinder Singh & Anr Vs. State of Punjab & Anr in CRM-M-50422-2021 decided on 22.12.2021, quashed the FIR as well as proceedings for offence relating to Section 307 IPC.
15. A similar position has also been followed by the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 12th March, 2021 in the matter of Mohd Umair @ Umer Vs. State (Govt NCT of Delhi) and Ors, wherein the proceedings for offence under Section 307 IPC were quashed, in view of the compromise effected amongst the parties.
ANALYSIS:
16. The following essential aspects of the case thus emerge for consideration by the Court:-
(i) The petitioners are largely in the age group of 17 to 22 years except for petitioner No.1-Parveen Kumar @ Bina, who is 25 years of age and petitioner No.5-Jaswinder @ Lilu, who is 26 years of age;
(ii) The victims/injured ageing between 20 to 24 years, except for respondent No.6-Satya Devi, who is 34 years old and respondent No.7-Sunita Rani, who is 29 years of age;
(iii) The parties are thus at the threshold of their career and life;
(iv) The injury attracting 307 IPC is on the abdomen and not on any vital organ of the injured;
(v) All the said victims have duly got their statement recorded before the 13 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -14 -
Magistrate including the Deepak Raj, who is alleged to have sustained injury attracting Section 307 IPC;
(vi) Even though the offence is stated to have taken place in the month of August 2019, the opinion has been obtained in the month of December 2019, when the doctor opined the injury to be 'dangerous to life';
(vii) The petitioners as well as the respondents are resident of same village i.e., Shahzadpur, Tehsil Narayangarh, District Ambala;
(viii) There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had ever involved themselves in any other offence of similar nature prior to commission of the instant offence or have indulged in any other case after the incident in question;
(ix) The antecedents cannot be held to be doubtful or having steered settlement under coercion or threat from the respondents;
(x) The incident in question being that of a fight at spur of a moment amongst the parties cannot be labelled as pre-meditated or by criminals or persons with a criminal track-record.
(xi) The law would intend to punish criminals for having committed heinous crime and would extent concession and leniency to people who happen to get involved in a crime at a given moment.
(xii) The case has not yet made any progress and the report furnished by the State does not conclusively establish that the offence in question had been committed by the petitioners.
(xiii) The settlement among the parties has already taken place and it is not likely that the prosecution witnesses are likely to support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the entire exercise of subjecting the party to undergo the rigours of criminal prosecution to finally culminate in an acquittal would 14 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -15 -
only be a harassment to the parties and add to their agony.
17. However, before exercising the power under section 482 CrPC and noticing the young age of the parties and absence of their criminal antecedents, I feel it essential that the balance of equities would be well served by accepting the instant petition and to impose certain financial burden on the petitioners for undue and unwarranted display of anger and thus, violating the law. It has also been noticed that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was directed by this Court to be deposited at the stage of recording of the statement, which amount stands deposited, however, an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- each should be paid by the petitioners. Since, there are nine petitioners in the instant case, the amount of Rs.90,000/- so collected, shall be paid to the following institutions:-
1) Rs.30,000/- to the Poor Patients Welfare Fund of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.
2) Rs.30,000/- to Haryana Chief Minister Relief Fund.
3) Rs.30,000/- to Haryana State Legal Services Authority.
18. Keeping in view the report of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Naraingarh; the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, as well as Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC Online SC 834 and also by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052; and also the powers vested in High Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice; the circumstances of the case noticed in Para No.16 and the precedents of this Court, the instant petition is allowed. The aforesaid FIR No.140 dated 28.08.2019 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 427, 452 and 506 of the IPC (Sections 307 and 326 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Shahzadpur, Ambala and all other consequential 15 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 ::: CRM-M-5351-2020 (O&M) -16 -
proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed in view of compromise dated 20.01.2020 (Annexure P-2). However, the same would be subject to payment of costs as stated above, within a period of one month from receipt of certified copy of this order.
Petition is allowed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
10/03/2022
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
16 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 06:49:00 :::