Sunil And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of order: 08.04.2024 SUNIL & ORS.

....Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gurasis Singh, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sankalp Gehlawat, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3. *** Nidhi Gupta, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of FIR No.541 dated 03.12.2022 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341, 354-B, 354-C, 365, 427, 506 and 511 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sampla, Rohtak and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) arrived at between the parties. Vide order dated 28.07.2023, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court on 04.08.2023 for getting their statements recorded in terms of certain parameters given in the aforesaid order with regard to the compromise dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure P-1).

In terms of the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by this Court, parties have appeared before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial

[2] Magistrate, Rohtak to get their statements recorded. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has submitted his report dated 08.09.2023 along with the statements of the parties, which was duly forwarded by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak to this Court. A perusal of the above said report would show that the parties (i.e. petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3) have appeared and suffered their statements with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be voluntary, genuine, and without any coercion or undue influence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the report, the compromise that has been effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any pressure/coercion or undue influence. Learned counsel further states that as per the report, neither the petitioners are involved in any other criminal case nor are they declared PO/proclaimed persons in the present case.

Learned State counsel states that he has no objection in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) qua the petitioners.

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 parties.

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

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3. Since

[3] 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 proceedings 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 Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal 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.

[4] any Court."

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.541 dated 03.12.2022 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341, 354B, 354-C, 365, 427, 506 and 511 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sampla, Rohtak along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

(Nidhi Gupta) Judge 08.04.2024 'Amit'

Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No

[5]