Aas Mohammad v. State Of Haryana And Another
- 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17789-2023(O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2023 Aas Mohammad ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present :
Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Dhruv Sihag, AAG Haryana Mr. Ankit Kamboj, Advocate for respondent No.2 ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY . J.
1.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.132, dated 02.03.2022, registered under Sections 66-C of the IT Act and Section 509 IPC (Section 201 IPC added later on) at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 22.03.2023 Annexure P-2. 2.
This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 13.04.2023, directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise. 3.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 11.05.2023 has been received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal. A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the petitioner and joint statement of complainant and two victims namely Salma and Shama Parveen have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. The compromise
- 2effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion. It is further stated in the report that there is only 1 accused He has never been declared proclaimed offender. However, he is involved in one more FIR. 4.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.
5.
The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that 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 is of the view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
6.
Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment reads thus:- "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. XXX---XXX" 7.
In view of the afore-referred judgments and perusing the report of the
- 3trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioner and the complainant, this Court finds that quashing of FIR will accord a quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed. 8.
Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.132, dated 02.03.2022, registered under Sections 66-C of the IT Act and Section 509 IPC (Section 201 IPC added later on) at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of the compromise dated 22.03.2023. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 27.07.2023 S.Sharma(syr) Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No