Shiv Kumar @ Rulia v. State Of Haryana And ORS
!
"# $%%& ' ( ) * +
'
# ,+ % '
'
!
"
# #
!$ %& ' !(
) ' - % ./01 This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.261 dated 01.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (Section 325 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Kurukshetra University, District Kurukshetra and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of Compromise Deed dated 10.07.2021 (Annexure P-2). Vide order dated 02.08.2021, the *!!+ , !-
was directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise.
In compliance thereof, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Kurukshetra has submitted a consolidated report, vide letter dated 09.09.2021 which indicates that the parties appeared before the Magistrate and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and with free will and consent. Relevant extract of the said report is reproduced as under:-
! !
"#
!
$%& '( ) %
*
+ *, *( -!
./Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioner arrayed in this petition?
As per the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, the present FIR was registered against accused Shiv Kumar @ Rulia and 6-7 other unknown persons. Only accused Shiv Kumar @ Rulia was arrested in the present case and no other person was apprehended/arrested in the present case. (ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/aggrieved party other than the respondents arrayed in the petition?
As per the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, there is no other complainant or affected/aggrieved party other than complainant Aman Kumar and injured Satya Devi and Hem Raj.
(iii) Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender?
As per the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, neither the accused nor any other person was declared Proclaimed Offender.
(iv) Report with regard to validity and genuineness of the compromise and whether all the affected parties have entered into a compromise.
In compliance of the aforesaid order, statement of accused Shiv Kumar @ Rulia, complainant Aman Kumar and injured Hem
& Raj and Satya Devi were recorded, wherein they stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily and now, there is no dispute between them and, therefore, FIR may be quashed. Both the parties were also asked if they have entered the aforementioned compromise voluntarily and without any influence or coercion, to which they answered in affirmative. Statements were made by them in the Court voluntarily. It is further submitted that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and valid. Further, it is submitted that all the affected parties have entered into a compromise with the accused.
From the above, it is evident that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily and without any coercion."
!
.
! . #
/
. # /
#
#
#!
/0
1*
+
+('
#
#
/ . #
! ' .
' 2
!
)
# / !
#
#
!!
.
!!
/
# / .
2
!
'
+
1*
+
* !
!
! In Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and
$ weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held as under:- "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 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.
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." Considering the entire facts, compromise, the statements of the parties recorded before the Illaqa Magistrate / Trial Court and also the report dated 09.09.
2021 submitted by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kurukshetra since the parties have arrived at a compromise by amicably settling their disputes and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Further, in the light of the above mentioned judicial precedents, when the parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be mere an abuse of process of the Court. In order to prevent unnecessary continuation of criminal proceedings on the ground that there are bleak chances of conviction in the case, I am of the considered view that it would be in fitness of things to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise and by quashing the FIR while accepting the prayer of the petitioner, would be securing the ends of justice.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.261 dated 01.07.2021 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 325 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Kurukshetra University and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner. However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the "Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh" and the said amount would be spent for the treatment of poor patients within the knowledge of its Medical Superintendent.
Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. $%%& .' 1 3
,
4,)
3
/! 4,)