Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravin Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 May, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-32171 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-32171 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.05.2013
Ravin Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: - Ms. Nidhi, Advocate, for
Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Ms. Sheenu Sura, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
*****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been moved by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of case FIR No.631 dated 18.11.2010 registered under Sections 406/498-A/506 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines Gurgaon, along with all consequential proceedings arising out of it.
Vide order dated 9.5.2013, parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 17.5.2013 to record their respective statements with regard to genuineness of compromise and learned trial Court was directed to submit its report.
In pursuance of order dated 9.5.2013, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, has submitted his report, which indicates that parties appeared before him and recorded their respective statements with regard to validity of compromise. As per the report, compromise Crl. Misc. No. M-32171 of 2012 -2- arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion from any corner. Now no dispute is pending between the parties.
Today, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 states that complainant would have no objection, if the present FIR along with consequential proceedings, arising out of it, are quashed. She has also handed over affidavit dated 18.5.2013 of the complainant to this effect, which is taken on record.
Consequently, in view of compromise and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, which has been affirmed by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, SLP (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010 decided on 24.9.2012, by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation, especially when this case does not fall within the category of exceptional cases where this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdictional power to quash the criminal proceedings, as held in Gian Singh's case (supra). In the facts and circumstances of this case it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, therefore, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end. Crl. Misc. No. M-32171 of 2012 -3- The present petition is allowed. FIR No.631 dated 18.11.2010 registered under Sections 406/498-A/506 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines Gurgaon, along with all consequential proceedings arising out of it, on the basis of compromise is quashed.
It is, however, made clear that if the proceedings already stand concluded and conviction recorded in the present case, this order shall be treated non est and, thus, will have no bearing on the conviction and sentence order.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge May 24, 2013 R.S.