Roopam Gupta & Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 11 September, 2017

CRM-M-26482-2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-26482-2017
Date of decision: 11.9.2017

Roopam Gupta and another
…Petitioners

Versus
State of Haryana and another
…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present: Mr.Gourav Verma, Advocate for the petitioners

Ms.Mahima Yashpal, AAG, Haryana

Mr.Rahul Deswal, Advocate
for respondent No.2- complainant
****

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed for quashing of First Information Report

No.161 dated 3.3.2016 registered under Sections 406 498A of the

Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’), at Police Station City Thanesar,

District Kurukshetra and all consequential proceedings arising

therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed (Annexure P2) arrived at

between the parties.

Vide order dated 25.7.2017, the parties were directed to

appear before the learned trial Court/ Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their

statements recorded. In compliance thereof, report of Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Kurukshetra dated 17.8.2017, has been received,

wherein, it has been noticed that the compromise between the parties is

1 of 6
16-09-2017 14:14:37 :::
CRM-M-26482-2017 2

genuine, voluntary and reached without any pressure and undue

influence.

Hon’ble the 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
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their

2 of 6
16-09-2017 14:14:39 :::
CRM-M-26482-2017 3

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

3 of 6
16-09-2017 14:14:39 :::
CRM-M-26482-2017 4

(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
::: Downloaded on – 16-09-2017 14:14:39 :::
CRM-M-26482-2017 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

5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 16-09-2017 14:14:39 :::
CRM-M-26482-2017 6

a crime.”

Hence, in view of the report of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

Kurukshetra, dated 17.8.2017 made in pursuance of the order dated

25.7.2017 passed by this Court, and the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble

the Supreme Court, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be

served in keeping the proceedings alive. It will be in the interest of

justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. First

Information Report No.161 dated 3.3.2016 registered under Sections

406 498A IPC, at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra

and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed

qua the present petitioners.

11.9.2017 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
gsv JUDGE

Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes / No

Whether reportable? Yes / No

6 of 6
16-09-2017 14:14:39 :::

Leave a Comment

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