High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/27559/2021allowed

Raj Kumar And ANR v. State Of Haryana And Another

2021-10-11Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.10.2021 Raj Kumar and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents

Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

! !!

Through this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.135 dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Jagadhri City, District Yamunanagar, alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including the judgment of conviction dated 24.07.2017 and the order of sentence dated 26.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, on the basis of compromise dated 03.06.2021 (Annexure P-4) arrived at between the parties. " ## $% #$#&

'() ! & *

# ! ! ** (* +

! ,* -! +! &* $% $.

#$# ! &

! ! * ! ** ** & ! * / 0&1 2 Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052

0&2 Sube Singh and another vs.

State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 & * !& ! ! ! !3 !* &

/ 0& 4 Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 "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

5 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. 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 personnel 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."

/*& & 0& 4

Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482

6 3 ** &! *!

! FIR No.135 dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Jagadhri City, District Yamunanagar, alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed and the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.07.2017 and the order of sentence dated 26.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, vide which the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC for a period of three years each, are set aside on the basis of compromise dated 03.06.2021 (Annexure P-4), subject to their depositing the costs of Rs.10,000/- with the Poor Patients' Welfare Fund, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.

- *& & *** * * & 11.10.2021

* 7 '!8 ,'- 7 &8 ,'-