Sachin Arora @ Sunny v. State Of Haryana And Another
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 20, 2023 SACHIN ARORA @ SUNNY ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA.
PRESENT: MR. VIVEK AGGARWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR. KARAN GARG, AAG, HARYANA.
MR. JAWAHAR LAL GOYAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.
DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J.(ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for the quashing of FIR No.450 dated 26.5.2019, under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC, Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra and all the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 18.12.2022 (Annexure P-2).
As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioners in connivance with each other played fraud with the complainant by receiving Rs.5 lakhs on the pretext of securing 7 Bands in IELTS for his son Ajay Kranti and handing over a fake DMC TRE.
Mr. Jawahar Lal Goyal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No.2-complainant and admitted the factum of compromise. On 19.1.2023, this Court after issuance of Notice of motion had directed the private parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial
-2Court (as the case may be) to get recorded their statements and trial court would satisfy itself about the authenticity of the compromise and the fact that it has been arrived at without any kind of undue influence or pressure, and would thereafter send its report to this Court, before the next date of hearing.
In pursuance of the said order, the report forwarded vide letter No.1135 dated 17.2.2023 has been submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, which is on record. The relevant part of the report is reproduced hereinbelow:- "As per statement given by complainant as well as SI Ranbir Singh (IO) in the FIR in question, five persons namely, Sharda Charan @ Sourabh Nainwal, Sachin @ Sunny, Jaspreet Singh Bhuller @ Jaspreet Bhuller, Amit Gulati and Sahil Arora have been arrayed as accused; as per statement given by IO as well as accused Sachin Arora @ Sunny, he had never been declared as Proclaimed Offender; in addition to present FIR, another case bearing FIR No.90 dated 2.3.2019 under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and 12.
1 Passport Act, PS IGI Airport, New Delhi has also been registered against him, which is pending investigation; the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence; as per the statement given by complainant as well as SI Ranvir Singh (IO), in the FIR in question, there were two victims, i.e. complainant Ranbir Singh and his son namely, Ajay Kranti Sheoran but the complaint was filed only by Ranbir Singh and he has also stated that his son Ajay Kranti Sheoran, is presently residing in Australia and he has no objection in the compromise as arrived with the accused persons; the challan report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
-3been filed by the prosecution against four accused persons namely, Sharda Charan @ Sourabh Nainwal, Sachin @ Sunny, Jaspreet Singh Bhuller @ Jaspreet Bhuller, Amit Gulati under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and it has been submitted by the prosecution that arrest of coaccused Sahil Arora is pending and supplementary challan against him shall be filed at a later stage. It is submitted that the present case is at the stage of appearance of accused Sharda Charan @ Sourabh Nainwal who is on anticipatory bail and fixed for 20.2.2023."
In compliance with the order dated 19.1.2023, an affidavit dated 3.3.2023 has been filed by respondent No.1, i.e. State, wherein it is mentioned that challan against the petitioner has been presented and is pending before the trial Court for framing of charges. A perusal of the said report would show that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in this case, who have stated that the matter has been compromised and complainant/respondent No.2 has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. They have further stated that the said compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is one more FIR registered against the petitioner and he has not been declared as proclaimed offender in the present FIR and learned State counsel has not disputed this fact.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court finds that the matter has
-4been amicably settled between the petitioner and the complainant, where challan stands preseented and the case is fixed for framing of charges, and by the passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably. Therefore to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserves to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which has the magnitude of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under it and this Court has the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash an F.I.R. even when the offences are non-compoundable, with the driving force being the object of securing ends of justice.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that:- "27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in the exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be it in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Criminal Procedure Code, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
28.
The compromise, in modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behavior. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is used to enhance such a
-5compromise which, in turn, enhances social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is the "finest hour of justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions, and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.
29.
The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Criminal Procedure Code which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 if the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.
30.
The power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent abuse of the process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined parameters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has no limits and the Court is a vital and extraordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order and play
-6a role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony, and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavor to give full effect to the same unless a such compromise is abhorrent to the lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery."
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed:- "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 exercising of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offenses 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.
-7a 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 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 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.
-8proceeding."
The aforesaid quoted percept has also been followed in State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Lakshmi Narayan (2019)5 SCC 688:- "12. Now so far as the conflict between the decisions of this Court in the cases of Narinder Singh (supra) and Shambhu Kewat (supra) is concerned, in the case of Shambhu Kewat (supra), this Court has noted the difference between the power of compounding of offences conferred on a court under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court. In the said decision, this Court further observed that in compounding the offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 Cr.P.C.
and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby, while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal proceedings or criminal complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is guided by the material on record as to whether ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, although ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. However, in the subsequent decision in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), the very Bench ultimately concluded in paragraph 29 as under: "29. xxxxxxx 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role.
Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation.
-9because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. xxxxxxxxx"
In view of the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra the compromise dated 18.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) and the principles laid down in conspectus of aforesaid judicial precedents, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. Therefore, this petition is allowed and FIR No.450 dated 26.5.2019, under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC, Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra and all the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed, qua the petitioner.
April 20, 2023 (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) Gulati JUDGE Whether Reportable :
Yes/No Whether Speaking/Reasoned :
Yes/No