Pardeep Kumar & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ORS

256 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : July 25, 2019 Pardeep Kumar and others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present:- Mr. S.S. Khurana, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.328 dated 21.6.2017 under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 342 IPC (Sections 147 and 148 IPC deleted and Section 325 and 34 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Khedki Daula, District Gurugram and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

Vide order dated 20.9.2018, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the con concerned parties with regard to the genuineness and validity or

-2otherwise of the compromise and to send its report to this Court through District and Sessions Judge.

A report dated 14.11.2018 has been submitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram, wherein it has been reported that statements of the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 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.

Affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Manesar, Gurugram, alongwith the medical record of the injured, has been filed in the Court. As per the opinion given by the PGIMER, New Delhi, the petitioner was discharged on 21.6.2017 without operating and it is further stated that the possibility of sustaining this injury due to fall from a truck cannot be ruled out.

Learned State counsel submits that in view of the same, the police has deleted Section 307 IPC and only Section 325 was added.

Counsel for counsel for the petitioners submits that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and the petitioners are not proclaimed offenders.

-3Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, has 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 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 given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power

-4is 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.

-5offences 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."

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

-6In view of the above discussion, present petition is allowed and FIR No.328 dated 21.6.2017 under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 342 IPC (Sections 147 and 148 IPC deleted and Section 325 and 34 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Khedki Daula, District Gurugram and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Gurugram.

The petition stands disposed of, accordingly. ( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ) July 25, 2019 JUDGE satish Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No