Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil @ Sunny And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 September, 2023
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:123155
CRM-M-35631 of 2023 1 2023:PHHC:123155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-35631 of 2023
DATE OF DECISION :- 19.09.2023
Sahil @ Sunny and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Abhishek Bansal, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.
***
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
Status report by way of affidavit filed by Joginder Singh, Deputy Superinendent of Police, Jind-Headquarter, District Jind filed. The same is taken on record.
2. The present petition has been preferred by five of the six accused seeking quashing of FIR No.00895 dated 19.10.2017, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 148/149/323/452/506 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Jind City, District Jind, on the basis of compromise dated 18.7.2023 (Annexure P-2).
3. On 25.7.2023, the following order was passed:-
"The present petition has been moved invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.0895 dated 19.10.2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452 and 506 of IPC, at Police Station Jind City, District Jind and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto on the basis of compromise.
1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-09-2023 20:40:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:123155 CRM-M-35631 of 2023 2 2023:PHHC:123155 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter already stands compromised vide compromise deed dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P-2). Notice of motion for 19.09.2023.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 and admits the fact of there being compromise between the parties.
In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 24.08.2023. On their doing so, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record their statements and furnish its report to this Court by the next date of hearing on the following aspects:-
1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in the 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 to the Registrar Judicial of this Court. Needless to say that in case for any reason the statements are not recorded on the aforesaid date, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall be at liberty to call the parties on any other date but not later than a week thereafter."
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind dated 25.8.2023 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"The requisite information is submitted to the following effect :-
1. As per the statement of IO/ASI Rajbir, six accused have been arrayed as accused in the present FIR and the petition before the Hon'ble High Court has been filed by five accused namely Sahil @ Sunny son of Raj Kumar, Aman son of Suresh, Rohit son of Dalip, Gourav son of Chhabil Dass & Manish son of Bhagat Singh.
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-09-2023 20:40:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:123155 CRM-M-35631 of 2023 3 2023:PHHC:123155
2. As per the statement of IO, no accused has been declared as proclaimed offender.
3. As per the statement of complainant and accused, it is established that complainant and accused settled their dispute amicably and voluntarily and compromise is genuine and voluntary and there is no coercion or undue influence upon the respondent/complainant.
4. As per the statement of IO, except the present FIR, one another FIR bearing No. 681 dated 25.11.2019, under Sections 323, 341, 506 & 34 IPC, P.S. City, Jind is pending against accused Rohit @ Dalip, one FIR bearing No. 74 of 2017, under Sections 323, 341, 148, 149 & 506 IPC, P.S. City, Jind is pending against accused Aman son of Suresh and one FIR bearing No. 119 of 2018, under Sections 147, 149, 283, 341 IPC, P.S. City, Jind is pending against accused Manish son of Bhagat Singh.
5. Statement of the investigating officer ASI Rajbir is recorded and as per his statement, complainant-Nitin Arora @ Mikin is the victim/complainant in the present case."
5. The aforesaid report reveals that there are six accused persons, however, the compromise has only been effected with accused-petitioners Sahil @ Sunny son of Raj Kumar, Aman son of Suresh, Rohit son of Dalip, Gourav son of Chhabil Dass & Manish son of Bhagat Singh.
6. Mr. Abhishek Bansal, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 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.
7. Similarly learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-09-2023 20:40:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:123155 CRM-M-35631 of 2023 4 2023:PHHC:123155
9. 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 :
(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 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-09-2023 20:40:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:123155 CRM-M-35631 of 2023 5 2023:PHHC:123155 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 into a compromise.
10. 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.
11. Since the parties are ad idem that the compromise/settlement has to be read strictly inter se between the parties to the present petition and the complainant wants to pursue prosecution of accused, namely, Vishal @ Raju and it is only Sahil @ Sunny son of Raj Kumar, Aman son of Suresh, Rohit son of Dalip, Gourav son of Chhabil Dass & Manish son of Bhagat Singh, who has approached this Court by way of present petition, the present petition is being entertained and allowed qua Sahil @ Sunny son of Raj Kumar, Aman son of Suresh, Rohit son of Dalip, Gourav son of Chhabil Dass & Manish son of Bhagat Singh only.
12. The question raised by State counsel as to whether the FIR can be quashed in part or not already stands answered by Apex Court in 'Lovely 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-09-2023 20:40:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:123155 CRM-M-35631 of 2023 6 2023:PHHC:123155 Salhotra and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi)' reported as (2018) 12 SCC 391, wherein it was observed as under:-
"xx xx xx We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellants - herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants - herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 - herein only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against co-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie."
13. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.00895 dated 19.10.2017, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 148/149/323/452/506 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Jind City, District Jind and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
19.09.2023
p.singh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:123155 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-09-2023 20:40:34 :::