Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mayank Jogi And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 10 February, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-27374 of 2013
Date of decision: February 10, 2014
Mayank Jogi and another
.. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta
Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.
Dr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana.
Surinder Gupta, J
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of the FIR No.12 dated 19.1.2011 (Annexure P-1), registered for offence under Sections 385/34 IPC at Police Station Butana, District Karnal, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-3).
As per allegations in the FIR, on 19.1.2011 at about 2.00 p.m. the petitioners entered in the poultry farm of the respondent No.2 by scaling the wall, claiming themselves to be Reporters and demanded `50,000/- under the threat to defame the respondent No.2 by airing news against him on A to Z News Channel.
Upon notice, Dr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State Arguments heard.
The parties were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded. The trial court has sent its report dated 30.8.2013 stating therein that the compromise has been effected in between the complainant and the accused which appears to be voluntary in nature and without any pressure or influence. Learned State counsel has also not disputed the compromise (Annexure P/3).
The only obstacle in the way of accepting the compromise for quashing the impugned FIR is that the offence under Section 385 IPC is not compoundable. In the case of Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007 Kumar Deepak 2014.02.20 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc. No. M-27374 of 2013 -2- (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, Full Bench of this Court has held that the FIR can be quashed on the basis of the compromise by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the offence is not compoundable.
In the instant case, the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectables and now the parties wish to live in peace and harmony.
Keeping all the above facts in view, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned FIR should be quashed. Keeping the case pending will not serve the ends of justice. The quashing of the FIR will provide the parties an opportunity to live in an amicable, peaceful and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of the parties to this petition but also for their families and ultimately the society at large. The offence in this case is not so heinous or serious that it cannot be settled by the parties through compromise.
In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.
February 10, 2014 (Surinder Gupta)
deepak Judge
Kumar Deepak
2014.02.20 10:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document