Amardeep Kadiyan And Others v. State Of Haryana And ANR

CRM-M -27908 of 2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M -27908 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.9.2017 ...

Amardeep Kadiyan and others ................Petitioners vs.

State of Haryana and another .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan Present: Mr.G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Dinesh Morya, Advocate for respondent No.2. ...

H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral) Petitioners - Amardeep Kadiyan and others have brought the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 1187 dated 19.11.2012, for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, against them, alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, stated to have been effected between them and complainant Deepika - arrayed as respondent No.2. When the petition came up for hearing on 2.8.2017, notice of motion was ordered to be issued. The respondent No. 1 - State of

CRM-M -27908 of 2017 -2Haryana through State counsel, whereas respondent No.2 through Mr. Dinesh Morya, Advocate, had put in appearance. Then in light of the contention that parties have since effected compromise, they were directed to put in appearance before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with regard to compromise and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was directed to send a report to this Court.

Report has been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, in terms of which complainant Deepika and accused, namely, Amardeep Kadiyan, Jagdeep Kadiyan and Geeta had appeared there and their statements were recorded, in terms of which they have admitted to have entered into a voluntary compromise, with free will, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. Further complainant has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed by this Court. There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of the compromise so arrived at between the parties. It has been reported that one Ramesh was also made an accused in the present case alongwith the present accused, but proceedings against accused Ramesh were already dropped as he had died. Alongwith the report statements of the complainant and all the accused, in original, have been annexed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel, besides going through the record. The parties are related inter se in as much as the complainant is the real sister of accused Jagdeep Kadiyan and Amardeep Kadiyan and sister-in-law of Geeta. They have amicably resolved the dispute

CRM-M -27908 of 2017 -3with regard to Flat No. 986-987 MIG Housing Board, Sector 4, Karnal.

Keeping in view the fact that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, which appears to have been arrived at between them voluntarily without any threat or coercion and in terms of ratio of the authority reported as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, where in para 28, it has been held as under :- "The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice".

Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases.

CRM-M -27908 of 2017 -4course of a litigation." The compromise is in interest of peace and tranquility in the society and for such like reasons this Court can quash the FIR and ancillary proceedings exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears to be a fit case to exercise such powers.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the abovesaid FIR alongwith ancillary proceedings are hereby quashed. ( H.S. Madaan ) Judge 1.9.2017 chugh Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No