Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar Singla And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2013
Crl. Misc. No.M-6488 of 2013 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-6488 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision : April 2nd, 2013
Suresh Kumar Singla and another .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another. .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana,
for the State.
None for respondent No.2.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Suresh Kumar Singla and Umesh Singla, the petitioners have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C., for quashing of FIR No.351 dated 26.6.2012 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sector 55, Faridabad, District Faridabad for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with section 34 IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise dated 8.2.2013 (Annexure P2).
While issuing notice of motion, the parties were directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate on 13.3.2013 for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. Learned Additional Crl. Misc. No.M-6488 of 2013 2 ..
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad has sent his report in this regard. He has reported that he has recorded the statements of the parties in support of the compromise and has found that their statements are voluntary and without any influence or pressure.
It is common knowledge that decisions rendered by the courts in adversarial system would leave one or the other of the parties unsatisfied. Sometimes, none of the two is satisfied. The compromise arrived at between the parties washes away all the grievances of the warring factions and pave way for normal relations in future between them. Taking restoration of peace and harmonious relations between the parties and order in the society as the prime concerns of law, it has been held by this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 that a non compoundable matrimonial offence could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. However, the said decision left a gap as it did not cover the cases other than the cases for matrimonial offences. A Larger Bench of five Hon`ble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 took the following decision with regard to the other non-compoundable offences:-
"29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion 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."Crl. Misc. No.M-6488 of 2013 3
..
The FIRs/complaints in non-compoundable offences could, therefore, be quashed on the basis of compromise. It is so because after compromise, no evidence supporting the prosecution is possible to come on the record and possibility of conviction of the accused becomes bleak. However, before accepting the petition and quashing the proceedings, the court has to satisfy itself that the compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit. The compromise in hand not only satisfies the above said requirements, but also appears to be securing the ends of justice. I, therefore, find that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties without their being any pressure on anyone. Hence, the petition is allowed and FIR No.351 dated 26.6.2012 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sector 55, Faridabad, District Faridabad for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with section 34 IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same is quashed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE April 2nd, 2013 som