Vasudev And Another v. State Of Haryana And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.09.2023 Vasudev and another

...Petitioners

VS State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Present:- Mr.P.R.Duggal, Advocate for Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Mohit Thakur, AAG, Punjab.

Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2.

***** ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.209 dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 420, 406, 370, 384, 34 of IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 20.03.2023 (Annexures P-2) arrived at between the parties.

2.

Since quashing was sought on the basis of compromise, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.04.2023 had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements in support of the compromise. A veracity report was also called for. 3.

Report dated 12.05.2023 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, had been received. Report reveals that statements of complainant party i.e. respondent No.2 as also of accused/present petitioners, were duly recorded. It is opined that a compromise has been arrived at without any pressure, undue influence or coercion. The report is accompanied by the statements of parties. It is apparent that the complainant

-2party/respondent No.2 and accused/petitioners have arrived at a compromise voluntarily and without any coercion.

4.

Learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 states that he would have no objection to the quashing of FIR in question. 5.

Vide order dated 16.08.2023, the learned State counsel was asked to report the role attributed to the petitioner qua ingredients of Section 370 IPC, a reply has been filed in the course of hearing, which is taken on record, with a copy thereof supplied to learned counsel for the petitioners.

6.

Perusal of the same reveals that no such offence as alleged of human trafficking is made out. No specific reply has been given in response to the aforesaid query but it is vaguely stated that the complainant was made to work as a slave in Armenia once he was sent there.

7.

On the other hand compromise between the parties reveals that complainant has not made any such allegations and as far as the allegations prior thereto are concerned, he has resiled from the statement. 8.

In any case, the allegation of slavery is neither sustainable in today's age that apart in any case same does not constitute an offence under Section 370 of IPC. 9.

This Court in appropriate cases can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings/FIR on the basis of compromise. A reference in this regard may be made to a decision dated 29.09.2021 of the Supreme Court in case titled "Ramgopal and anr. V. The State of Madhya Pradesh"1 and a Full Bench decision of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others"2 . 10.

In the premise it is an appropriate case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to bring to an end the criminal proceedings initiated in the light of impugned FIR.

11.

Petition is thus allowed. FIR No.209 dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 420, 406, 370, 384, 34 of IPC and Section 24 of Immigration 1Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052

-3Act, at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal, and all proceedings emanating there from qua petitioners, stand quashed.

12.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (ARUN MONGA) JUDGE September 25, 2023 'D' vir Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No