Karambir And Others v. State Of Haryana And Another

 

 

 






!"#$ "%&'&#( )*)


 

 ... Petitioners V/s.

State of Haryana and another ... Respondents 

  
  



          

     ! " # $$$$  
   

%  &   '

 ('



)* )* #*##  

  +'

     ('

! 

)#!), *- #*),  +'

).   /0" )*12

)3 )) #*)#' 4#44#-4#21*2

4-0
.

 5& 5 '

' 4#4

5 4-0
.  '      ' 4#-

5

4-0
. '    5

 ' 4#2

5 4-0
.   '    *4 5  5  '' 

   2****!   6  #****!     ' 7    &       

%&   /05       " #  

08 9)2 )) #*)#5    ' :)*

 

  5

(  " )  & 

' 5 Dol5'

&5  0 5" )  5  

" # ;   ;

Dolla 5   <'

 5Dol. 9   ; &5 5    %  5  6
 " #7  &6
" )7  5
6
"

47         &   (' 5 gandasi darati, '5 '' = 

)2 *4 #*#4 &&    '        '&     '          &  '   &  

' 

. " 1)2*#*#45  '  -3#. .

5

  !<'

 &     5 &5    5    & 0 <

!%   .'             5  

   0         

 )2 *4 #*#4       &  +'

).  

*4 *- #*#45  &   &   

   ' & &5    5'   ' ' ''  

 <'

 /0 5

       '    ' '&  .'.'         &   &    &5           

    &'

    '  &

%  >& '.'     

  ?      ! "# $$% &' ()* + &$!%

+ ,&-&( .*+  &

'  "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. 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.

cannot be 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.

* 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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.

In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

' ( , +%   ! + &$!%#/'

$$% &' ()*
  ,&-&( . *
   <'

     &    5 ;&  >& '.'

 <'

 /05'; &

' -. &/ 0  "# $$% &'

+!1 +%#!2 34356


 
 .



733 5 '  "13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non9 heinous offences or where the offences are pre9dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post9 conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr:P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice."

Ххххххх 20.

Having appraised the afore9stated parameters and weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that:

Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature;

Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an

offence of such a serious nature: that quashing of which would override public interest;

Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been concluded or their appeal (s) against conviction stand dismissed;

Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute (s);

Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on record to evince that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired between the parties;

Sixthly, since the Appellants and the complainant (s) are residents of the same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who have decisively to forget and forgive any ill9will and have no vengeance against each other; and Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain uneffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking at their present age."

05+'

/.      5'   ('

 '''5' & '  .<'    &

5     .'            <'

           

 <' 5     '   @ 5' 

-3#. .



 . " 1)2*#*#4 '

 ('



)* )* #*##  

 +'



         '

  ('

 

 )# *- #*),  

), *- #*),  +'

) . 

      <' &  
  67    

   0  

    )*)

 #%%. 8!%$!% #/%9  :%#&%+ ;%# 8!%$!% %/&$* % ;%# :&