Raghbir Singh And ORS. v. State Of Haryana And ANR.

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-28363 of 2017 .....

Date of decision:20.11.2017 Raghbir Singh and others .....Petitioners v.

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

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Brijesh Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. Anirudh Singh, Advocate for complainant-respondent No.2. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.70 dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 326 IPC, which was added later on) at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal; impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 25.2.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Assandh (Karnal) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.3).

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantKrishna Devi on the allegations that the accused-petitioners attacked her and inflicted injuries. After the trial, the accused-petitioners were convicted and sentenced vide order dated 25.2.2014 (Annexure-P.2) passed by learned

[2] Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Assandh (Karnal). The petitioners filed appeal against the above judgment and order which is pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. During the pendency of appeal, 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, has sent report dated 2.11.2017 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 Assistant 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Cr.) 910, has held that proceedings after conviction can be quashed.

[3] This Court in Sube Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Cr.) 102, has held as under:- "In the light of these peculiar facts and circumstances where not only the parties but their close relatives (including daughter and son-in-law of respondent No.2) have also supported the amicable settlement, we are of the considered view that the negation of the compromise would disharmonize the relationship and cause a permanent rift amongst the family members who are living together as a joint family. Nonacceptance of the compromise would also lead to denial of complete justice which is the very essence of our justice delivery system. Since there is no statutory embargo against invoking of power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code after conviction of an accused by the trial Court and during pendency of appeal against such conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings subject to certain safeguards."

This Court in Satya Narain v. State of Haryana, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Cr.) 97 and Lal Chand v. The State of Haryana, 2009 (5) R.C.R. (Cr.) 838, has held that High Court is vested with unparallel power to quash criminal proceedings at any stage to secure ends of justice. The parties have buried their hatchet, though at a belated stage, it was held, that if compromise is accepted and proceedings are quashed, it will go a long way, to create better relations between the parties. Therefore, it was observed that it is a fit case

[4] for quashing of FIR, conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 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 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 between both the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012

(4) RCR (Cr.) 543, and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra) and by this Court in Sube Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another (supra), Satya Narain v. State of Haryana (supra), and Lal Chand v. The State of Haryana (supra), this petition is allowed. FIR No.70 dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 326 IPC, which was added later on) at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal; impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 25.2.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Assandh (Karnal) and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed/set aside qua the petitioners.

November 20, 2017.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp*

[5] NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No