Paras v. State Of Haryana And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-55235-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on: 05.12.2024
Pronounced on: 13.12.2024 Paras ... PeƟƟoner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Mr. Anshul Khurana, Advocate for the peƟƟoner.
Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
*** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police StaƟon SecƟons 04.02.2024 Ram Nagar Police StaƟon Karnal 323, 325, 506 IPC The peƟƟoner, arraigned as accused in the above capƟoned FIR, has come up before this Court under SecƟon 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the FIR and all consequenƟal proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person(s). 2.
During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the accused and the aggrieved person(s) have compromised the maƩer, and its copy is annexed with this peƟƟon as Annexure P-2.
3.
AŌer that, the peƟƟoner came up before this Court to quash the FIR, impleading the aggrieved persons as respondent no. 2.
4.
Pursuant to order of this Court dated 07.11.2024, the aggrieved person(s) (R-2), appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal and stated that there would be no objecƟon if the Court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. The relevant extract of the report of the concerned Court reads as follows: Name of the reporƟng Court Ms. Vaneet Kaur Sokhi, JMIC, Karnal
Criminal Case no.
before trial Court CHI-803-2024 1.
Names of the complainant/ vicƟms(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) Daya Singh 2.
Dates on which the statement(s) of the complainant/ vicƟms(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) were recorded 21.11.2024 3.
Has the idenƟty of the complainant/ vicƟms(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified?
Yes 4.
Whether all the vicƟms/ all the aggrieved persons have compromised the maƩer?
Yes 5.
Is there pressure, threat, or coercion upon the vicƟm(s)/aggrieved person(s)/complainant?
No 6.
Names of the accused person(s) Paras 7.
Dates on which the statement(s) of the accused persons(s) recorded 21.11.2024 8.
Whether all the accused have compromised the maƩer? If no, then the names of the accused who have compromised.
Yes 9.
Whether proclamaƟon proceedings are pending against any accused?
No 10.
Has the police report been filed or not?
Yes 11.
NoƟce of accusaƟon /Charges have been framed or not?
Yes 12.
SecƟons of statutes invoked in the maƩer SecƟons 323, 325, 506 IPC 13.
Whether the court is saƟsfied with the genuineness of the compromise?
Yes ANALYSIS & REASONING:
5.
Despite the severe opposiƟon of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this peƟƟon: - a) The accused and the private respondent have amicably seƩled the maƩer between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;
b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the seƩlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycoƩs, bribes, or other dubious means;
c) The aggrieved person has willingly consented to the nullificaƟon of criminal proceedings;
d) There is no objecƟon from the private respondent in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;
e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve maƩers concerning public policy;
f) The rejecƟon of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness;
g) There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, or professional offender; h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society; i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing FIR and all consequenƟal proceedings is jusƟfied to secure the ends of jusƟce. 6.
In the present case, all the offences are compoundable under SecƟon 320 CrPC. Given the legislaƟve mandate, the prosecuƟon can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.
7.
In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of JusƟce arises propiƟously when parƟes, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion. 8.
In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise, placement of parƟes, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise deed and its objecƟves point towards its acceptance. 9.
In Himachal Pradesh Cricket AssociaƟon v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018:INSC:1039 [Para 47], 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ PeƟƟon (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that maƩer was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave PeƟƟons against the order of the High Court rejecƟng their peƟƟon for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ peƟƟon has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automaƟcally stand viƟated."
10.
Considering the enƟre facts, compromise, and in the light of the abovemenƟoned judicial precedents, I believe that conƟnuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruiƞul purpose whatsoever. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invokes the inherent jurisdicƟon under secƟon 528 BNSS, 2023and
quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the peƟƟoner(s). The bail bonds of the peƟƟoner(s) are accordingly discharged.
PeƟƟon allowed in the terms menƟoned above. All pending applicaƟon(s), if any, stand closed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 13.12.2024 JyoƟ Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes Whether reportable :
No