← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/22398/2022allowed

Satbir v. State Of Haryana And Another

2022-12-08Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan6 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22398-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.12.2022 Satbir

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:

Mr. Pankaj Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Anil K. Sokal, Advocate for Ms. Bindu Tanwar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****** ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.23 dated 08.02.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 326 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2020 as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. Vide order dated 23.05.2022, the parties were directed to appear

-2before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of the compromise.

A report dated 09.06.2022 has been submitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, wherein it has been reported that statements of the petitioner and respondent No.2 have been recorded and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their free will.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and the petitioner is not a proclaimed offender.

Learned counsel has relied upon Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Crl.) 102, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that even after the conviction, if the parties have settled the dispute amicably and have decided to live in peace and harmony, this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can compound the offence. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court were set aside and it was directed that the appeal, pending before the lower appellate Court, would be rendered as infructuous.

Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment rendered in K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi Rep. By P.O.P. Kaliappan, 2010 (1) RCR

-3- (Crl.) 184, whereby, on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Courts below and the accused was acquitted of the charge, framed against him under Section 138 of the N. I. Act.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the private respondent have not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that the High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court feel that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held as under:- "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

-4given 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. Similarly, any compromise between 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.

-5particularly 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."

-6proceedings to continue.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the aforesaid judgments rendered in Sube Singh's case (supra) and K. Subramanian's case (supra), present petition is allowed and FIR No.23 dated 08.02.2016 under Sections 323, 325, 326 IPC, registered at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2020 as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner. The petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

The appeal, if any, pending before the lower appellate Court, shall be disposed of accordingly.

However, this will be subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority concerned, within a period of 08 weeks from today, failing which this petition will be deemed to be dismissed without any further orders.

[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ] 08.12.2022 JUDGE vishnu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No