Ram Parkash And ORS. v. State Of Haryana
!"#$%&#'()($*+++ !,!-.!)/!*&$-)+ +++#"("($*#-) 0#-)1) 2"!"#$%!-3!*!
+++#)4$*&#*"
5 6 +2 7
!
" "
$ % &'
## &'#( !) * " %# +"
", % '- '.
&'#- !) " * % " / ! " ! &
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322, to contend that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the FIR and criminal proceedings even at the stage of post-conviction when appeal is pending.
3.
In the case Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) Apex Court held as under :- "18. It is now a well crystallized axiom that the plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.
19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:
(i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society;
(ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any;
(iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim;& (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."
1&& ## &'&(""/%/ CRM-48850-2023
To be heard with the main case.
CRM-48851 of 2023 This is an application for impleading injured Banti Devi, Satpal as well as the legal representatives of complainantPrithvi Singh (deceased). For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Banti Devi-injured, Satpal and legal representatives of deceased Prithi Singh are impleaded as newly added respondents as mentioned in para 3 of the application. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties.
CRR-2309-2015 Learned counsel representing the petitioners as well as that of complainant are ad-idem that the parties have settled the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021) that even after conviction compromise can be considered.
In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 22.12.2023. On their doing so, the learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record their statements and furnish its report to this Court by the next date of hearing on the following aspects:-
1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR.
2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender?
3. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence?
4. Whether the accused persons are involved in any other case or not?
5. The trial Court is also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer as to how many victims/complainants are there in the FIR.
A copy of the report be also sent to the Registrar Judicial of this Court.
Needless to say that in case for any reason the statements are not recorded on the aforesaid date, the learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall be at liberty to call the parties on any other date but not later than a week thereafter.
Adjourned to 22.02.2024."
5.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 18.01.2024 from District and Sessions Judge, Kaithal has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- "POINT NO.1:
3. Regarding Point no. (1), it is submitted that as per the statement o Investigating Officer, six persons were arrayed as accused in the FIR. Th accused persons named in the FIR are: Randhir Singh, Raghbir Sing both sons of Ramnath, Rishi Kumar, son fo Randhir, Jai Bhagwan so of Chandiya, Ram Prakash and Parveen Kumar and out of these, accused Ram Parkash and Parveen Kumar have expired. Above named accused have been convicted by then Learned Predecessor vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2013/21.11.2013. Ram Parkash and Parveen Kumar have expired and their death certificates are Ex.C2 and Ex.C2. Statement of Investigating Officer SI Suresh Kumar is AnnexurePOINT NO.2:
4. Regarding Point No.2, it is submitted that as per report of Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Suresh Kumar (Annexure-1), no proclamation proceedings against accused are pending in the present case and none of the accused have
been declared as proclaimed person.
POINT NO.3
5. Regarding Point No.3, it is submitted that complainants namely Satpal Singh, son of Hari Singh, Banti wife of Satpal, Nirmala Devi, wife of Prithvi, Ajay and Sanjay Saini, both sons of Prithvi Singh, all residents of Gali No.3, Amargarh Gamri, Kaithal vide their separately recorded statements have stated that compromise (Ex.C1) has been effected between the parties out of their free will and without any coercion or pressure from any corner. Statement of complainants/victims are Annexure R-2. They have stated they have no objection if FIR is quashed. Accused has also stated that compromise is correct and genuine and was effected out of free will of the parties, without any pressure or coercion. Statement of accused are Annexure R-3. In view of the said statements of the parties, the compromise appears to have been effected voluntarily and out of free will. It is submitted that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine. POINT NO.4:
6. Regarding Point No.4, it is submitted that besides the present case/FIR, there is no other case pending against the accused.
POINT NO.5:
7. Regarding Point No.5, it is submitted that statement of investigating officer SI Suresh Kumar, Belt No.9/KTL was recorded and as per his statement, all the complainants/injured in the present case/FIR are: Satpal, son of Hari Singh, Banti, wife of Satpal, Nirmala Devi, wife of Prithvi Singh and Ajay and Sanjay Saini, sons of Prithvi Singh. Thus, there are five complainants/injured/victim."
.
) "23 % ! ,45
""%
6 %236
""!" " , 45 6 #- '8 &'&( 29 03
5"+ " ""!
% %
:
$+ 9+ "!"/ 9 , 08& + 6 %%;% / "
!"
"!##$!$ % &
'
()
& !"*+##,-- . /
/ !!0 $1#1 ) "!+ 1 )2
% &
! "
31 # 1 ) $ ) 22 "3-* !" 4 * 2) ! " $ "/ % !
9+ +
!
"
#
$
%
&$# #& & '
$ #
( ) #
$
$*$ #
#
&$& #
& &
&(
& $ &
& # & # % #
'
&$
&
&(
" # "
#
#
# !$
+
&&,
$
# !$
"-# '
& !$
&
) .,/
0
&
.,/
!$
+
"
+
& & & #
#
'
!$
&
& &
&&
$ $
& $
$ &
'
&
&&
$ $ 1& ) $.,/ 2 # &
#
"!$
)
"
$
$ #&
# #'
$ %/
+ 9 , <08&+ + 6 45 % #
&& ' # '
()
& 5 % && $
#
% # # -#
#
&
#&
# & % $ #
&
& &
-# '
/ 3 #& 4 5 "
'
+
) .,/&& )
&
$ $
& $
6 ##
+6 "!""/ 1 &'
## &'#( !) * " %#+" " , % '- '.
&'#- ! ) " * %
"""%% !6 ) 23
#&
%"23!""
7 *&#:-1!-3; 2 =%<> = " ?