Rajbir And ANR. v. State Of Haryana And ORS.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......
Criminal Misc. No.M-42112 of 2013 (O&M) .....
Date of decision:11.7.2016 Rajbir and another .....Petitioners v.
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents ....
Present:
Mr. Sarvjit Singh Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate for Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate for complainant-respondents No.2 and 3. .....
Inderjit Singh, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.67 dated 18.9.2005 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 326 and 34 IPC at Police Station Jatusana, District Rewari and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom and for setting aside the judgment and order 4.7.2012/5.7.2012 (Annexure-P.2) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli, vide which the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 326 IPC, in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.3). The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantIshwar Singh on the allegations that the accused-petitioners attacked him and inflicted injuries to him and his brother. After trial, the petitioners were
[2] convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous sentence of two years vide above judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Thereafter, the petitioners filed appeal against the impugned judgment and order before the learned Sessions Judge, Rewari, which is pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. During the pendency of appeal, with the intervention of the respectable persons of both the parties, they entered into compromise and have amicably settled their dispute.
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, Rewari, before whom the appeal is pending, has sent her report dated 13.10.2014 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and has been effected between the parties of their own free will and without pressure from any quarter.
Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for complainantrespondents No.2 and 3 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 petitioners as well as learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and learned counsel for
[3] complainant-respondents No.2 and 3 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.
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
[4] 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 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.67 dated 18.9.2005 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 326 and 34 IPC at Police Station Jatusana, District Rewari and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom and the judgment and order 4.7.2012/5.7.2012 (Annexure-P.2) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli vide which the petitioners have been convicted and
[5] sentenced for the offence under Section 326 IPC are hereby quashed/set aside on the basis of compromise.
July 11, 2016.
(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp*