Piyush Bhatia v. State Of Haryana And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 02.11.2023 PIYUSH BHATIA ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Yogesh Vashista, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Duhan, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.427, dated 01.08.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/307/341 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Faridabad Kotwali, District Faridabad (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.
2.
Reply by way of an affidavit of Abhimanyu Goyat, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber, Faridabad has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Haryana today in Court. The same is taken on record.
3.
On 18.08.2023, the following order was passed :-
"The present petition has been moved invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No.427 dated 01.08.2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 147/148/307/341 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Faridabad Kotwali District Faridabad, Haryana. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia submits that though FIR has been registered for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC but keeping in view that it is a case of no injury, the same would be covered by ratio of law laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688. He further contends that the matter already stands compromised vide compromise dated 12.07.2023 (Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion for 02.11.2023.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. Pradeep Duhan, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 and admits the fact of there being a compromise between the parties.
In view of the above, the parties, i.e. the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 & 3 are directed to appear before learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 05.09.2023. 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." 4.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report from Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Faridabad dated 06.10.2023 has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- "1.
There are five persons namely Aryan, Piyush, Pulkit Bhaita, Kashish and Manish Pasi were arrayed as accused in the FIR.
During investigation accused Manish Pasi was found innocent and remaining four accused were arrested. Three more accused namely Khushal Bhatia, Sagar Gulati @ Shanki and Dinesh were also found involved in this case and were arrested.
Thus, as on date, there are seven accused facing trial in this case namely Aryan, Piyush, Pulkit Bhaita, Kashish, Khushal Bhatia, Sagar Gulati @ Shanki and Dinesh. 2.
No accused is proclaimed offender in this case. 3.
The compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence and is a valid compromise. 4.
Accused Piyush, Aryan, Kashish, Sagar, Khushal and Dinesh are involved in other cases also and details of same is mentioned in my detailed report annexed as
Annexure X.
5.
There are two victims in this case including the complainant whose names are Tanishk Dhingra and Aayush Dhingra.".
5.
The aforesaid report reveals that there are seven accused persons namely Aryan, Piyush, Pulkit Bhaita, Kashish, Khushal Bhatia, Sagar Gulati @ Shanki and Dinesh. Compromise has been effected with all accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though FIR has been registered under Section 307 IPC, however, it being a no injury case, would fall within the exceptions of Section 307 IPC as carved out in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688. 7.
Ld. Counsel appearing for private respondents admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the present petitioner are quashed.
8.
Similarly Ld. State Counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.
9.
I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
10.
After considering judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688,
Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and 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), the proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Court and this Court is :
(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is not affected by Section 320 of the Code.
(b) However, wider the power greater the caution. (c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.
(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.
(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after
investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.
(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise.
11.
Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as :- (i) The present matter does fall within the exceptions as carved out in Laxmi Narayan's case (supra).
(ii) The offences are of private nature.
(iii) The parties have compromised.
(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.
(v) Complainant/victim has entered into compromise on his own volition.
(vi) It is no injury case.
(vii) Investigation stands completed.
12.
Since the parties are ad idem that the compromise/settlement has to be read strictly inter se between the parties to the present petition. It is only Piyush Bhatia who has approached this Court by way of present petition, the present petition is being entertained and allowed qua Piyush Bhatia only.
13.
The question raised by State counsel as to whether the FIR can
be quashed in part or not already stands answered by Apex Court in 'Lovely Salhotra and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi)' reported as (2018) 12 SCC 391, wherein it was observed as under:- "xx xx xx We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellants - herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants - herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 - herein only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against co-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie." 14.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.427, dated 01.08.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/ 307/341 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Faridabad Kotwali, District Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed qua the present petitioner only. November 02, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No