Bhaskar Sharma v. The State of Haryana

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Lal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for respondent no.2. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Petitioners no.1 to 8 claim themselves to be employees and agents of M/s Mohindra and Mohindra Financial Service, Sirsa, dealing in the business of giving loans on hypothecated old and new vehicles. They have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.10 dated 11.1.2006 under Sections 365, 392 IPC registered with Police Station Sadar Dabwal, District Sirsa and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (P1) having effected with complainant-respondent no.2 Om Parkash. Crl. Misc.No.M 34288 of 2010 # 2# As per allegations levelled in the FIR, complainant who is Principal of Adarsh Senior Secondary School, had taken a loan of Rs.3.65 lacs towards the purchase of Mohindra Loadking Vehicle for picking the children from their houses to school and drop them from school to their houses and on his failure to repay the instalments on 11.1.2006 when the driver of the aforesaid vehicle was taking the children from school to drop them at their residence then in the way he was stopped and all the children were forcibly brought down from the vehicle and the vehicle was taken away by the petitioners. Resultantly the aforesaid FIR was lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that case is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence. While issuing notice of motion parties were given liberty to appear before the learned Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in terms of the compromise who after recording their statements was required to submit its reports regarding genuineness of compromise. Report (Mark-A) in the shape of letter dated 08.12.2010 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mandi Dabwali duly fowarded by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa, Haryana accompanied by photocopies of statements of both parties has been received 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 and complainant has no objection if the aforesaid FIR 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 Crl. Misc.No.M 34288 of 2010 # 3# entering into compromise wherein the complainant has stated that he has no objection if the present FIR against the petitioners-accused is quashed. Learned State Counsel is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the statement recorded in terms of the aforesaid compromise whereby the complainant is 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 Crl. Misc.No.M 34288 of 2010 # 4# relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in 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 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 FIR No.10 dated 11.1.2006 under Sections 365, 392 IPC registered with Police Station Crl. Misc.No.M 34288 of 2010 # 5# Sadar Dabwal, District Sirsa and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against the petitioners. 17th December, 2010 Vinay ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE