Himat Singh v. State Of Haryana And Other

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH **** Date of decision:23.08.2022 Himat Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:

Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Abhyvadya Sood, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL) This is second petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.206 dated 09.08.2021 registered under Section 379-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station City Pehowa, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 17.07.2022 (Annexure P-2). On 26.07.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:- "This is second petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.206 dated 09.08.2021 registered under Section 379-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station City Pehowa, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the persons concerned are party to the compromise. Notice of motion for 23.08.2022.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Abhyvadya Sood, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua compromise within a period of 10 days.

The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information:- 1.

Number of persons arrayed as accused.

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 FIR 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.

26.07.2022 (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE"

In pursuance to the said order, a report has been submitted by the District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:- Number of persons arrayed as accused As per statement of I.O.: One (Himmat Singh) Whether any accused is proclaimed offender.

No, as per statement of I.O.

ASI Mahan Pal Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

In view of statement of complainant and victim, who were questioned before recording their statements, it appears that compromise is genuine.

xxxx xxxx Two [Sandeep Nanda (complainant and Sanchi Nanda (victim)] How many complainants/ victims are there in the FIR A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioner, complainant-respondent No.2-Sandeep Nanda and victimrespondent No.3-Sanchi Nanda have appeared and suffered statements with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be voluntary, genuine, and out of free will.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was not declared proclaimed offender in the present case. Learned State counsel has stated that he has no objection in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 has again reiterated that the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest of all the persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity between the two parties.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.

After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the complainant. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed. 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 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 is of the opinion that the same is 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.

proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "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 view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition is allowed and FIR No.206 dated 09.08.2021 registered under Section 379-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station City Pehowa, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioner. (VIKAS BAHL) August 23, 2022.

JUDGE Ishwar Singh Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No