Manohar Paswan v. State Of Haryana And Another
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.12.2023 Manohar Paswan ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and Another ..... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :
Mr. Dhruv Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr.Shivansh Malik, Advocate for respondent No.2. ALKA SARIN, J . (ORAL) 1.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.298 dated 14.08.2021, registered under Sections 323, 34 and 498-A of IPC (Section 34 IPC has been deleted in the final report) at Police Station Butana, District Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-3). 2.
On 13.04.2023, the following order was passed : "This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.298 dated 14.08.2021, registered under Sections 323, 34 and 498-A of IPC (Section 34 IPC has been deleted in the final report) at Police Station Butana, District Karnal (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise said to have been entered into
-2between the parties, dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-3). Notice of motion.
Ms. Mahima Yashpal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1-State. Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 by filing power of attorney and the same is taken on record. Let the parties appear before the trial Court/Duty Magistrate on 04.05.2023 or any other date convenient to the Court, for recording their statements with regard to compromise. The trial Court/Duty Magistrate is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing as regards authenticity and genuineness of compromise after recording statements of all the parties: The trial Court/Duty Magistrate shall also furnish the following information:
1. Whether there is any other accused, apart from the petitioners arrayed in this petition.
2. Whether there is any other complainant or affected/aggrieved party, apart from the respondents arrayed in the petition.
3. Whether the parties are involved in any other criminal case.
4. Whether any of the parties has been declared a proclaimed offender.
The trial Court/Duty Magistrate shall send his/her report through the Sessions Judge concerned on or before the date fixed, i.e., 28.08.2023."
3.
Pursuant to the order dated 13.04.2023, a report dated 13.06.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal has been received by this Court wherein it has been stated that the statements of the parties have
-3been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that the complainant/respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report.
4.
The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2012 (10) SCC 303] has held as under : "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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.
R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.
-4between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.
In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
-55.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052] wherein it has been held that even in non-compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. 6.
In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings. 7.
Resultantly, FIR No.298 dated 14.08.2021, registered under Sections 323, 34 and 498-A of IPC (Section 34 IPC has been deleted in the final report) at Police Station Butana, District Karnal, is quashed, including all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-3).
8.
The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
07.12.2023 (ALKA SARIN) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO