Anshu @ Santosh Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 28.02.2023 Anshu @ Santosh Kumar .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA Present: - Mr. Sahil Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Sukhveer Kaur, Advocate for respondent No. 2.. ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 150 dated 16.04.2014 (Annexure P-2) registered under Sections 380, 406, 467, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Sarai Khwaja, Faridabad and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3) effected between the parties.

Pursuant to the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, has submitted his report along with statements of the parties vide letter No. 35 dated 16.01.2023 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through

-2the relevant record.

It is now well settled that the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases on the basis of settlement between the parties for securing the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process where 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. Criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character particularly those arising out of commercial transaction or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family dispute can be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves.

However, such power cannot be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape dacoity, etc. which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed under special enactments like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servant while working in that capacity cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. For judicial precedents in this regard, reference may be made to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr., 2012 (4) RAJ 549: Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Supreme Court) : 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 482, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.

Laxmi Narayan and others (Supreme Court) : 2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 255 and Kulwinder Singh and others Vs.

-3High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. According to the report, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, is satisfied that the compromise so effected is for the amicable settlement of the dispute and was effected without any external pressure, coercion or force and is a valid compromise. Considering the report of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and the fact that the compromise will bring peace and harmony between the parties, aforesaid FIR No. 150 dated 16.04.2014 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, qua petitioner, only.

Disposed of, accordingly.

28.02.2023 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No