Havneet Arora & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ORS

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-12123 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:6.5.2016 Havneet Arora and others .....Petitioners v.

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents ....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Ranjit Singh Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Singla, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. Ivan Singh Khera, Advocate for complainant-respondents No.2 and 3.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.90 dated 22.3.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 380, 448, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, District Panchkula and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2) and affidavit (Annexure-P.3).

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantR.K. Arora on the allegations that the accused-petitioners had broken the lock of the room in possession of the complainant in which valuable articles

Cr. Misc. No.M-12123 of 2016 [2] were stored and on the asking of the complainant to open the room they threatened them to kill. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula has sent his report dated 26.4.2016 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the complainantrespondents No.2 and 3 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and learned counsel for complainant-respondents No.2 and 3 and have gone through the record. In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that

Cr. Misc. No.M-12123 of 2016 [3] both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No.90 dated 22.3.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 380, 448, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, District Panchkula and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. May 6, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp*