Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akash Chauhan And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 4 April, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046745
CRM-M-63583-2024 -1-
270 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-63583-2024
Date of Decision: 04.04.2025
Akash Chauhan and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Aditya Partap, Advocate with Ms. Vidhi Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vijesh Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Rajan Rai, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Mani, Advocate for Mr. Ankit Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
1. Instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.565 dated 13.06.2024, under Sections 308, 323, 34 & 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Yamuna Nagar City, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Further prayer has been made for staying the further proceedings.
2. FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2025 15:10:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046745 CRM-M-63583-2024 -2-
3. This Court vide order dated 18.12.2024 directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the Trial Court/Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
4. In pursuance to the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri has sent the report dated 27.02.2025 to this Court. With the report, she has also annexed the original statement of respondent No.2/complainant, namely, Sharad Tyagi; joint statement of petitioners, namely, Akash Chauhan, Rupinder Singh @ Robin and Daulat Rana @ Sagar Rana recorded on 24.01.2025 and statement of ASI Labh Singh recorded on 15.02.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion, pressure or undue influence and is valid and out of free will of the parties. It has been mentioned therein that besides the present case, Petitioner No.2-Rupinder Singh @ Robin (accused) allegedly involved in case FIR No.143/2018 under Sections 325, 148, 149, 452, 188, 290, 291, 323, 336, 120-B of IPC; FIR No.106/2017 under Section 374 of IPC and FIR No.721/2022 under Sections 379-B, 506, 323, 452/34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, all FIRs registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar. Similarly, Petitioner No.3-Daulat Rana @ Sagar Rana (accused) allegedly involved in FIR No.106/2017 under Sections 374 IPC and FIR No.519/2022 under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Act, both FIRs registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2025 15:10:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046745 CRM-M-63583-2024 -3- Jagadhri.
6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 B.N.S.S. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
7. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.
8. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:-
"61. 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 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2025 15:10:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046745 CRM-M-63583-2024 -4- 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 flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2025 15:10:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046745 CRM-M-63583-2024 -5- 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
9. Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.
10. As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR No.565 dated 13.06.2024, under Sections 308, 323, 34 & 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Yamuna Nagar City, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, is hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.
11. Petition stands allowed.
04.04.2025 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
ps-I JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2025 15:10:56 :::