Rohit vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 18 July, 2017

CRM-M-3770 of 2017 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-3770 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision: 18.07.2017

Rohit
…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another
…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present: Petitioner in person with
Mr. Manish Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.

Respondent No.2 in person with
Mr. M.K. Taya, Advocate for respondent No.2.

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.1224 dated

26.12.2016, registered under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal

Code (for short ‘the IPC’), at Police Station Karnal Sadar, District

Karnal and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

The daughter of respondent No.2, namely, Roma, present in

Court asserts that she is 22 year old. She has been duly identified by the

Investigating Officer. She states that she has solemnized marriage with

the petitioner out of her own sweet Will and she is happily residing

1 of 6
22-07-2017 19:41:12 :::
CRM-M-3770 of 2017 -2-

with the petitioner in her matrimonial home.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2

opposes the prayer made by the petitioner.

Heard.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab

and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has observed as under:-

“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.
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for
the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or 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

2 of 6
22-07-2017 19:41:13 :::
CRM-M-3770 of 2017 -3-

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.”

In Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and

Another (2014) 6 SCC 466, it has been observed thus:-

“31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and
lay down the following principles by which the High
Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to
the settlement between the parties and exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the
criminal proceedings:

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to
be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court
to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code.
No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court
has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings
even in those cases which are not compoundable, where
the parties have settled the matter between themselves.
However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and
with caution.

(II)When the parties have reached the settlement and on

3 of 6
22-07-2017 19:41:13 :::
CRM-M-3770 of 2017 -4-

that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings
is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to
secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an
opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences
of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and
have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences
alleged to have been committed under special statute like
the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by Public Servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions
or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes should be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal cases.

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is
to be generally treated as crime against the society and
not against the individual alone. However, the High
Court would not rest its decision merely because there is
a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is
framed under this provision. It would be open to the
High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section
307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High
Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the
body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in

4 of 6
22-07-2017 19:41:13 :::
CRM-M-3770 of 2017 -5-

respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be
the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie
analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether
there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances
of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it
can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would
be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be
swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties
is going to result in harmony between them which may
improve their future relationship.

(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play
a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is
arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of
offence and the matter is still under investigation, the
High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to
quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is
because of the reason that at this stage the investigation
is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the
evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy
stage, the High Court can show benevolence in
exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie
assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned
above. On the other hand, where the prosecution
evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of
the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument,
normally the High Court should refrain from exercising
its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such
cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the
case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to
whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed
or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is
already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at
the appellate stage before the High Court, mere
compromise between the parties would not be a ground
to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender
who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here
charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction
is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore,
there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of
such a crime.”

5 of 6
22-07-2017 19:41:13 :::
CRM-M-3770 of 2017 -6-

Keeping in view the above and the guidelines laid down by

Hon’ble the Supreme Court, this Court feels that in the peculiar facts

and circumstances of the case where the prosecutrix/victim has stated

that she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner out of her own

sweet wish and she is happily residing with the petitioner and the

chances of conviction of the petitioner are bleak, no useful purpose

would be served in keeping the proceedings alive. Accordingly, the

present petition is allowed. FIR No.1224 dated 26.12.2016, registered

under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the

IPC’), at Police Station Karnal Sadar, District Karnal and all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua

the present petitioner(s).

18.07.2017 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
sumit.k JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No

Whether Reportable: Yes No

6 of 6
22-07-2017 19:41:13 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *