Tarun Kumar Nagpal And ORS v. State Of Haryana And Others

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 14.11.2022 Tarun Kumar Nagpal and others .... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA Present: - Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Ishita Jain, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Chhoker, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 259 dated 08.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at Police Station Ambala Sadar, District Ambala and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure P-2). Pursuant to the order dated 01.04.2022, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, has submitted her report along with copies of statements of the parties vide letter No. 454 dated 28.04.2022 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge,

-2Ambala vide letter No. 9169 dated 29.04.2022. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and gone through the relevant record.

It is now well settled that the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases on the basis of settlement between the parties for securing the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process where the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case. Criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character particularly those arising out of commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family dispute can be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves.

However, such power cannot be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape dacoity, etc. which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed under special enactments like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servant while working in that capacity cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. For judicial precedents in this regard, reference may be made to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr., 2012 (4) RAJ 549: Narinder Singh Vs.

-3RCR (Criminal) 482, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (Supreme Court) : 2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 255 and Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.

According to the report, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, is satisfied that the parties have compromised the matter in dispute voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence or pressure from any corner and the compromise is genuine. Considering the report of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala and the fact that the compromise will bring peace and harmony between the parties, aforesaid FIR No. 259 dated 08.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, qua petitioners, only.

Disposed of, accordingly.

November 14, 2022 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No