Satyawan And Others v. State Of Haryana And ORS

-1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.10.2024 Satyawan and others ..... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present:

Mr. Zorawar S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners (through video conferencing). Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Jitender K. Sehrawat, Advocate for respondent No.2 (through video conferencing). *** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of criminal complaint bearing CIS No.SC/446/2018, dated 16.10.2018/03.03.2020, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 382, 452, 506, 120-B, 392 of IPC, titled as 'Jagdeep vs. Prashant & others" (Annexure P-2) pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hisar on the basis of compromise dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) along with all subsequent proceedings arising out of the above said complaint (Annexure P-2) qua the petitioners.

2.

Criminal complaint in question was filed by complainantrespondent No.2 and the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and

-2they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-4. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the complaint in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

3.

This Court vide order dated 18.07.2024 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report. 4.

In pursuance to the same, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hisar has sent the report dated 21.09.2024 to this Court. With the report, he has also annexed the original statement of complainant/respondent No.2-Jagdeep recorded on 30.08.2024. He has also annexed the original joint statement of petitioners No.1 to 5, namely, Satyawan, Sanjay, Ramesh, Sharmila and Santosh, recorded on 30.08.2024. He has also annexed the original statement of ASI Dharambir recorded on 13.09.2024. On the basis of the statements, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hisar has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and correct and is not the result of fraud or misrepresentation and the same is the result of free will of the parties. It has been further mentioned that there were 12 accused in the present complaint. It has further been

-3mentioned that the petitioners, namely, Sanjay, Ramesh, Sharmila and Santosh were not involved or declared proclaimed offender in any other criminal case but petitioner, namely, Satyawan is involved in one another case bearing FIR No.450, dated 10.12.2021, registered at Police Station Sadar Hansi and co-accused, namely, Satyawan, S/o Phool Singh (who is not party in the present case before this Court) is also involved in criminal case bearing FIR No.244, dated 29.06.2022, Police Station Sadar, Hansi and co-accused, namely, Monu (who is not party in the present case before this Court) is also involved in criminal case bearing FIR No.34, dated 01.03.2021, Police Station Bhattu Kalan. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hisar.

6.

A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.

7.

Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh

-4and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.

8.

Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:- "61. 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.

-5be 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 a 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 personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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.

-6Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

9.

Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the case would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10.

As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, criminal complaint bearing CIS No.SC/446/2018, dated 16.10.2018/03.03.2020, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 382, 452, 506, 120-B, 392 of IPC, titled as 'Jagdeep vs. Prashant & others" (Annexure P-2) pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hisar on the basis of compromise dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, namely, Satyawan, Sanjay, Ramesh, Sharmila and Santosh on the basis of compromise. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.

   

  01.10.2024 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) rittu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No