Dharamvir And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 16.01.2023
Pronounced on : 24.01.2023 Dharamvir and others ......Petitioners Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Ms. Veena Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 6. *** ANOOP CHITKARA J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 29.07.2020 Sadar Dadri, 323, 34, 506 IPC District Charkhi Dadri The petitioner, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person. 2.
During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-5. 3.
After that, the petitioner came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent. 4.
This court had asked the parties to appear before the concerned court and had asked the said court to give its report as per the format. The report reads as follows: Name of the reporting Court Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri
--2-- FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 29.07.2020 Sadar Dadri, 323, 34, 506 IPC District Charkhi Dadri Criminal Case no.
before trial Court 1.
Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s)
1. Sunil wife of Rajbir
2. Amit son of Rajbir
3. Himanshu son of Rajbir
4. Anju Rani daughter of Balbir 2.
Dates on which the statement(s) of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) were recorded 15.12.2022 & 16.12.2022 3.
Has the identity of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified?
Yes 4.
Whether all the victims/ all the aggrieved persons have compromised the matter?
Yes 5.
Is there pressure, threat, or coercion upon the victim(s)/aggrieved person(s)/complainant?
No 6.
Names of the accused person(s)
1. Dharamvir son of Amar Singh
2. Rajbala wife of Dharamvir
3. Sanjeev Kumar son of Dharamvir
4. Sanjay Kumar son of Jagdish Parsad
5. Anita daughter of Dharamvir 7.
Dates on which the statement(s) of the accused persons(s) recorded 15.12.2022 8.
Whether all the accused have compromised the matter? If no, then the names of the accused who have compromised.
Yes 9.
Whether proclamation proceedings are pending against any accused?
No 10.
Has the police report been filed or not?
Filed 11.
Notice of accusation /Charges have been framed or not?
Not framed 12.
Sections of statutes invoked in the matter Under Sections 323, 325, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC 13.
Whether the court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise?
Yes ANALYSIS & REASONING:
5.
Despite the opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition. In the present case, all the offences are compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. Given the legislative mandate, the prosecution can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.
--3-- 6.
In Shakuntala Sawhney v 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. 7.
In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise, placement of parties, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise deed and its objectives point towards its acceptance. 8.
In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stands vitiated."
9.
Considering the entire facts, compromise, and in the light of the above-mentioned judicial precedents, I believe that continuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s). The bail bonds of the petitioner are accordingly discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed. Petition allowed in the terms mentioned above. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 24.01.2023 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.