Satpal And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : January 30, 2020 Satpal and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present:- Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate for for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Rahul Makkar, Advocate for respondent No.7.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) CRM-18593-2019 Allowed, as prayed for. Applicant-Sanjay s/o Dalel Singh, r/o village Chochra, District Karnal is, hereby, impleaded as respondent No.7. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. CRM stands disposed of.

CRM-M-5624-2019 By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.34 dated 15.1.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 34, 326 IPC, registered at Police Station Assandh, as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

-2Vide orders dated 2.6.2019 and 24.9.2019, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for getting their statements recorded regarding compromise. The trial Court was further directed to transmit its report regarding genuineness of the compromise between the parties.

Reports dated 27.3.2019 and 11.10.2019 have been submitted by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh, wherein it has been reported that statements of the parties have been recorded and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have entered into compromise voluntarily without any coercion. Therefore, the compromise is genuine. The trial Court has also recorded the statement of the Investigating officer/ASI Parveen Kumar, wherein he has stated that there is no other accused, except the petitioners in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no other case pending between the parties and the accused has not been declared a proclaimed offenders.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

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 the High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to

-3secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held as under:- "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 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.

-4Prevention 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 predominatingly 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.

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."

-5Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

In view of the above discussion, present petition is allowed and FIR No.34 dated 15.1.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 34, 326 IPC, registered at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.

( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ) January 30, 2020 JUDGE satish Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No