Rajneesh Khattar And Others v. State Of Haryana And Another

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-15919 of 2017 .....

Date of decision:21.12.2017 Rajneesh Khattar and others .....Petitioners v.

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents ....

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. Bhisham Kumar Majoka, Advocate for complainantrespondent No.2. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.265 dated 25.7.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 288, 336 and 427 IPC at Police Station Sushant Lok, District Gurgaon (now Gurugram) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2). The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantBaldev Singh Anand on the allegations that the accused-petitioners started unsafe digging of the land to start construction on their plot and due to their carelessness and negligence digging, the house of the complainant tilted and

Cr. Misc. No.M-15919 of 2017 [2] developed cracks in the walls and became unsafe for living and the complainant with his family have to live in Hotel Queens Residency and Vijay Villa Guest House at Sushant Lok. 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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram has sent report dated 11.12.2017 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 complainantrespondent No.2 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 parties as well as learned State counsel 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-15919 of 2017 [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.265 dated 25.7.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 288, 336 and 427 IPC at Police Station Sushant Lok, District Gurgaon (Now Gurugram) and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioners. December 21, 2017.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No