Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Garg And Others vs State Of Haryana And Anoter on 19 February, 2020
Author: Raj Mohan Singh
Bench: Raj Mohan Singh
CRM-M-40684-2019 1
275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.40684 of 2019
Date of Decision: 19.02.2020
SANJAY GARG AND OTHERS
......Petitioners
Vs
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:Mr. J.S. Saini, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Surender Singh, A.A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Fateh Saini, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Saini, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
[1]. Petitioners have preferred this petition for quashing of FIR No.780 dated 31.07.2019 registered under Sections 323, 34, 365, 384 & 506 IPC at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising in pursuance thereof on the basis of compromise.
[2]. On 23.09.2019, following order was passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court:-
1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2020 05:05:31 ::: CRM-M-40684-2019 2 By invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.780 dated 31.07.2019 for offence punishable under Sections 323, 34, 365, 384, 506 IPC, registered with Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Notice of motion for 12.12.2019.
Mr. Naveen Sheoran, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent - State while Mr. Fateh Saini, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.
Counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply copy of the paperbook to counsel opposite during course of the day.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua compromise within a period of 30 days.
The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information:-
1. Number of persons arrayed as accused.
2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender.
3. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.
4. Whether the accused persons are involved in any other FIR or not.
5. The trial Court is also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR."
[3]. In compliance of the aforesaid order, both the parties appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra on 27.09.2019 and got their statements recorded in the context of genuineness of the compromise in question. The Chief Judicial 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2020 05:05:31 ::: CRM-M-40684-2019 3 Magistrate, Kurukshetra vide report dated 27.09.2019 has also endorsed the following facts:-
"The said compromise/settlement is genuine and is not result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. Further, it is quite apparent from the record that there are seven accused persons in the above FIR and all of them have appeared today and none of the accused is absconding or declared proclaimed offender in the present case.
In addition to this, the statement of the Investigating officer is also recorded to the effect that in the above FIR there is only one complainant/victim namely Haridas son of Ramkishan, and except him there is no other complainant/victim in the present case.
Concerned Ahlmad is directed to send original statements of both the parties so recorded today with copy of this order to the Hon'ble High Court immediately, through proper channel. Attested copies of the statements be placed on file."
[4]. On the basis of report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra this Court is of the opinion that a valid compromise has been entered into between the parties. [5]. The extent and sweep of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing criminal prosecution on merits as well as on the basis of compromise between the accused and the victim remained question of interpretation since long. The Hon'ble Apex Court after due 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2020 05:05:31 ::: CRM-M-40684-2019 4 consideration of judgments in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 47; Bhajan Lal vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 and State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1489, has summed up the controversy in State through Special Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and others, 2003(2) RCR (Crl.) 860 (SC). The legal position summed up in the said judgment is in the following manner:-
"Thus, the law is that Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and to seeing that they obey the law. The powers under Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice. They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory order. However, the power under Article 227 is a discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an order of the High Court, such a source of power, when the High Court itself does not in terms purport to exercise any such discretionary power. It is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence, under Article 227, must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bound of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Further, where the statute bans the exercise of revisional powers it would require very
4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2020 05:05:31 ::: CRM-M-40684-2019 5 exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since the power of superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory law. It is settled law that the jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised "as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code starts with the words "Nothing in this Code". Thus the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised even when there is a bar under Section 397 or some other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, as is set out in Satya Narayan Sharma's case (supra) this power cannot be exercised if there is a statutory bar in some other enactment. If the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character, which could be corrected in exercise of revisional powers or appellate powers the High Court must refuse to exercise its inherent power. The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. The inherent power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which require interference would be few and far between. The most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out herein above fall in this category. It must be remembered that the inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or any other enactment for redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. This power should not be exercised against an express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. This power cannot be exercised as against an express bar in some 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2020 05:05:31 ::: CRM-M-40684-2019 6 other enactment."
[6]. Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 considered the scope of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to hold that High Court has powers to quash prosecution in order to achieve ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law. These powers are not limited to matrimonial dispute alone, rather these powers are unlimited. However these powers are to be exercised very sparingly and with utmost care and caution. There is no statutory bar which can affect the inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is to be exercised Ex-Debitia, justitia to prevent abuse of process of Court.
[7]. In exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., criminal proceedings are not to be quashed where the offence is heinous in nature. Proceedings can only be quashed where the issue is overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil profile arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile and civil or matrimonial nature. In a way dispute may involve wrong which is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have redressed the same by entering into compromise. [8]. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2020 05:05:31 ::: CRM-M-40684-2019 7 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered necessary imports of all previous precedents and observed in the following manner:-
"57. 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 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 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
7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2020 05:05:31 ::: CRM-M-40684-2019 8 flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." [8]. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there are remote chances of conviction. It would be just and expedient to exercise discretionary power by this Court in terms of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to put an end to the controversy for all times to come. This would be in the interest of justice and would achieve ends of justice for the parties. The compromise would definitely 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2020 05:05:31 ::: CRM-M-40684-2019 9 enable the parties to live in peace and the offences are not heinous offences or serious offences of mental depravity, nor it involves offence covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Chances of conviction are remote and bleak, therefore, continuation of proceedings would not be in the interest of both the parties and would result in unnecessary vagaries of criminal trial.
[9]. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to quash the FIR No.780 dated 31.07.2019 registered under Sections 323, 34, 365, 384 & 506 IPC at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) along with subsequent proceedings arisen thereof (if any), are hereby quashed.
[10]. Petition stands disposed of.
February 19, 2020 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Atik JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2020 05:05:31 :::