Vijay vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 3 November, 2017

CRM-M-34173-2017 -1-

114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-34173-2017
Date of decision-03.11.2017
Vijay …Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others …Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present: Ms. Parveen Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal, AAG, Haryana assisted by
Inspector Neha.

Ms. Naveen Mandhan, Advocate for
Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

***
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.312 dated 23.08.2017

(Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal

Code (in short ‘IPC’), at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal and all the

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise

(Annexures P-2 and P-3) arrived at between the parties.

Reply on behalf of State has been filed in the Court today and the

same is taken on record.

Prosecutrix along with her brother/complainant and father heard in

person.

Vide order dated 14.09.2017, the parties were directed to appear

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

recorded. In compliance thereof, report of Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate,

1 of 6
07-11-2017 00:56:40 :::
CRM-M-34173-2017 -2-

Karnal dated 26.09.2017 has been received, wherein, it has been noticed that

the compromise between the parties is 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
entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the

2 of 6
07-11-2017 00:56:41 :::
CRM-M-34173-2017 -3-

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:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 07-11-2017 00:56:41 :::
CRM-M-34173-2017 -4-

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 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

4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 07-11-2017 00:56:41 :::
CRM-M-34173-2017 -5-

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.”

Hence, in view of the report of Addl.Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Karnal dated 26.09.2017 made in pursuance of the order dated

14.09.2017 passed by this Court, and the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble

5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 07-11-2017 00:56:41 :::
CRM-M-34173-2017 -6-

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 and FIR No.312 dated

23.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 363 and 366-A of the

IPC, at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal and all the consequent

proceedings arising therefrom, stands quashed qua the present petitioner (s).

The petitioner is stated to be in custody, he be released henceforth, if not

required in any other case.

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
JUDGE
03.11.2017
vanita

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No

6 of 6
07-11-2017 00:56:41 :::

Leave a Comment

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