IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

234 CRM-M-43474 of 2017
Date of decision: 21.12.2017.

Swarupanand Sarkar and another …Petitioners.

Versus
State of Haryana and another …Respondents.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN

Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Munish Dev Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Rajshri Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***

SHEKHER DHAWAN, J.

Present petition is for quashing of FIR No.340 dated

03.08.2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police

Station Khaidki Daula, District Gurugram, on the basis of compromise

dated 06.03.2017 (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR

may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

3. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was

directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to

the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise by this Court.

4. In compliance thereof, report from the Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class (Duty), Gurugram, has been received through District and Sessions

Judge, Gurugram, with statement of parties, in which, it has been mentioned

that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or

coercion from any side.

1 of 4
24-12-2017 00:58:26 :::
-2-

5. The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh

vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and

Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs.

State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed

that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during

proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and

in case of involving non-compoundable offence.

6. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another.

2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions

it was ruled 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 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

2 of 4
24-12-2017 00:58:27 :::
-3-
transactions or the offences arising out of matr committed by public servants
while working in that capacity etc., cannot provide imony relating to dowry
etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel
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.”

7. The same view has been recently reiterated by Hon’ble the

Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and

another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482.

8. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the

parties and the fact that in the present case FIR was registered and the case

is still at the initial stage, both the parties to the litigation have entered into

compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has

been arrived at with the intervention of the respectable and family members

and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live

peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest and justice that

parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel

for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes

between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this

context.

3 of 4
24-12-2017 00:58:27 :::
-4-

9. In view of above, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently,

the impugned FIR No.340 dated 03.08.2015, under Sections 498A, 323,

506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Khaidki Daula, District Gurugram,

and all other consequential proceedings arising thereto are hereby quashed,

on the basis of compromise, qua the petitioners only.

(SHEKHER DHAWAN)
JUDGE
21.12.2017
komal

Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
24-12-2017 00:58:27 :::