Khema & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Virender Soni, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Crl. Misc.No.52615 of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc.No.M 29434 of 2010 Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of cross version in FIR No.61 dated 20.03.1999 under Sections 148, 149, 452, 323, 506, 325 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Sadar Rohtak, District Rohtak and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 20.09.2010(Annexure P-3). As per allegations in the cross case levelled by complainant Rohtash, on 20.3.1999 he along with his brother Asha Nand were sitting in Crl. Misc.No.M 29434 of 2010(O&M) # 2# his house and were talking with his mother and sister. In the meantime they heard a noise in the street and when they came in the courtyard from inside, they saw that Khem Chand, Ramesh, Satbir, Brahm Parkash, Rajesh having lathies and jellies in their hands were coming towards the house of complainant. On seeing Rohtash petitioner-Khema threatened him that he could not escape today and on saying this petitioners-Khema, Ramesh, Satbir, Krishan, Brahm Parkash, Rajesh entered into the house of the complainant and gave lathi blow on the forehead, elbow of left arm and beneath the elbow of his left arm. The grudge behind all this was that Khema had been provided a Rasta by his father between his house and the house of Khema and they have altercation many times for closing the windows of the house of Khema which are opening in that Rasta. Report (Mark-A) in the shape of letter of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak duly forwarded by learned District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide letter dated 30.11.2010 accompanied by photocopy of statement of both parties has been received in Crl. Misc.No.M 28983 of 2010 wherein it is stated that the parties appeared before that court and suffered statements recorded separately in terms of the compromise thereby stated that the matter between the parties has been compromised in the FIR as well as in the cross case and complainant has no objection if the aforesaid cross case and all consequential proceedings are quashed against the petitioners. From the report submitted it is evident that the dispute between the petitioners-accused and the complainant has been amicably resolved by entering into compromise wherein the complainants have stated that they have no objection if the present FIR against the petitioners-accused is Crl. Misc.No.M 29434 of 2010(O&M) # 3# quashed. Learned State Counsel is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the statements recorded in terms of the aforesaid compromise whereby the complainants are not willing to support the case of the prosecution. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675 B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has also held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:- “The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T. 2008(9) S.C. 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in Crl. Misc.No.M 29434 of 2010(O&M) # 4# view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise. Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:- “We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that the dispute is between two groups in the same village over the opening of a window in a street and there is version and cross version and that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and cross version Crl. Misc.No.M 29434 of 2010(O&M) # 5# in FIR No.61 dated 20.03.1999 under Sections 148, 149, 452, 323, 506, 325 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Sadar Rohtak, District Rohtak and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against the petitioners. 07th December, 2010 Vinay ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE