Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 May, 2013
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRM No.M-11514 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-11514 of 2013
Date of decision : 24.05.2013
Anil Kumar and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate,
for Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rudraneel Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana,
assisted by ASI Dharam Singh.
None for respondent No.2.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.100 dated 26.03.2013, registered under Sections 406, 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Heard.
Vide order dated 09.04.2013, the parties were directed to appear before the learned Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their statements recorded. In compliance thereof, report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, CRM No.M-11514 of 2013 -2- Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dated 16.05.2013, has been received to the effect that the statements regarding compromise between the parties have been recorded, and the parties have tendered their written compromise.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another', 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has observed in para 57 as under:-
"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 CRM No.M-11514 of 2013 -3- 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 favour 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 CRM No.M-11514 of 2013 -4- 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."
In view of the above, this Court feels that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings alive.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed; FIR No.100 dated 26.03.2013, registered under Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC, at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar; and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners.
24.05.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE