Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Another on 17 December, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
272 CRM-M-57344-2024
Date of decision: 17.12.2024
Vinod Kumar and others
....Petitioners
V/s
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr.Kamal Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana.
Mr.Rishi Lal, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.
*****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition is for quashing of FIR No.59 dated 15.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, and all consequential proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of compromise dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) arrived at, between the parties.
2. Vide order dated 19.11.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at, between them.
3. A perusal of the FIR shows that complainant-Harbir Singh has lodged FIR against the petitioner and many other persons for committing fraud and causing financial loss to them. FIR has been lodged against 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2024 20:57:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170288 CRM-M-57344-2024 -2- many persons including the petitioner but compromise has been effected between only petitioner and complainant-Harbir Singh which is partial.
4. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rakesh Das versus State of Haryana and another passed in CRM-M No. 48043 of 2023, dated 12.11.2024, has categorically laid down that an FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of a partial compromise. The relevant extracts/paras are reproduced hereunder:-
"15. An incisive reading of the facts set-forth thereins, whereins, all the principles (supra) become settled, but do not suggest that the said principles became erected, even when a partial compromise became arrived at amongst the concerned, and/or when no composite compromise became arrived at amongst all concerned, nor also but obviously the plenitude of jurisdiction preserved in the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C., became exposited thereins, to be available to become well recoursed, even when the concerned make only a piecemeal compromise, inasmuch as, to the extent that some of the offenders are omitted to be mentioned in the settlement as becomes drawn, and/or even when some of the aggrieved from the offending act of the offender(s) are not included in the said made settlement.
16. In consequence, if the learned Single Benches of this Court after receiving a piecemeal settlement, did proceed to record a piecemeal order of composition of offence(s), besides made orders for the quashing of the verdicts of conviction drawn against the concerned, by the learned trial Judge concerned, whereagainst thus subjudice appeal(s) become instituted before the learned Appellate Court concerned, but basing them on the judgments (supra), are so made, thus without a careful and insightful reading(s) being made, both to the facts set-forth in the verdicts (supra), and, of the guidelines (supra) erected thereons.
17. Consequently, the views taken by the learned Single Benches of this Court, based upon the judgments (supra) whereby they 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2024 20:57:35 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170288 CRM-M-57344-2024 -3- proceeded to receive piecemeal settlements drawn amongst the concerned, and, also proceeded to record a piecemeal order of composition, are prima facie made outside the contours of the guidelines spelt in the verdicts (supra). In consequence, the view(s) taken in the said verdicts, thus is per incuriam, the expostulations of law (supra), therebys the said adopted view(s), thus to the considered mind of this Court, but require(s) to be hereafter not become adopted by the learned Single Benches of this Court."
4. In view of the above, the present petition for quashing of FIR on the basis of partial compromise is dismissed.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
December 17, 2024
poonam
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2024 20:57:35 :::