Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 16 September, 2022
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
CRM-M-37469-2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37469-2019
Date of decision : 16.09.2022
Ranjit Singh and others ...... Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Shvetanshnu Goel, Advocate for
for respondents No. 2 to 6.
****
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.81 dated 18.03.2014, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal, on basis of compromise dated 23.05.2019 (Annexure P-2).
On 05.09.2019, the following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel refers to Annexure P-2 to contend that a compromise has been effected between the parties and prays for quashing of FIR No.81 dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 148, 323, 452 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal, Haryana.
Notice of motion for 09.12.2019.
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 01:08:38 ::: CRM-M-37469-2019 2 At the asking of the Court, Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. A complete copy of the paper book has been furnished to the learned State counsel, in the Court.
At this stage, Mr. Shrey Goel, Advocate causes representation on behalf of respondent No.2 and admits the factum of compromise.
Accordingly, the private parties are directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on or before 20.09.2019 for recording their statements with regard to compromise/settlement. Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate 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 in FIR.
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 case 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.
A copy of the report be also sent through fax to the Registrar Judicial of this Court."
Earlier report was received on 16.03.2021, whereby trial Court after recording statements of petitioners and victims namely Desraj, Satish, Jagdish and Balbir Singh reported that the compromise looks to be without any coercion, undue influence etc. Further, it was also reported that Rajinder Kumar is also one of the complainant/victim, but he has not 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 01:08:38 ::: CRM-M-37469-2019 3 appeared. Thereafter, order was passed by this Court on 18.08.2022, whereby Rajinder Kumar-respondent No.5 was directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 31.08.2022 to get his statement recorded.
Now fresh report has been received on 07.09.2022, whereby it has been reported that respondent No.5 Rajinder Kumar appeared and suffered a statement. He has supported the compromise so effected and has submitted the same has not been without any pressure and without of his free will.
Mr. Shvetanshnu Goel, Advocate, appears for respondents No.2 to 6 and admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner are quashed.
Similarly learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
After considering judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688, Kulwinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021), the proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Court and this Court is :
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 01:08:38 ::: CRM-M-37469-2019 4
(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is not affected by Section 320 of the Code.
(b) However, wider the power greater the caution.
(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.
(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.
(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.
(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 01:08:38 ::: CRM-M-37469-2019 5 into a compromise.
Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as :-
(i) The present matter does not fall within the exceptions as carved out in Laxmi Narayan's case (supra).
(ii) The offences are of private nature.
(iii) The parties have compromised.
(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.
(v) Complainant/victim has entered into compromise on his own volition.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.81 dated 18.03.2014, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
16.09.2022
Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 01:08:38 :::