20.02.2025 CHANDER PARKASH GARG ANOTHER … v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Case Details
291 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28532-2024 Date of Decision: 20.02.2025 CHANDER PARKASH GARG ANOTHER ….Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Yashvardhan Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Arman Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the below detailed First Information Report (FIR), and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 24.04.2024 (Annexure P-2), effected between the parties. DETAILS OF CRIMINAL CASE:- FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District 0003 02.01.2024 120-B, 420 IPC Gurgaon Gurugram Sadar 2. Vide order dated 30.05.2024, the affected parties were directed to appear before the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was to submit a report in this regard giving certain details as enumerated in the said order. 3. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the parties appeared before the Court of learned D/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram, and as per report dated 13.06.2024, submitted to this Court, both the parties have got recorded their respective statements in Court. From the report received from the learned Court below, the following is discernible:- SANGEETA 2025.02.21 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28532-2024 2 Sr. No. Description 1. Whether all the accused and complainant / victims are party to compromise & signed the same. 2. Whether any accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender/person or any such proceedings against him/her have been pending initiated or adjudication. 3. Whether in the opinion of learned Court below, the compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence. Yes No Yes 4. 4. Any other aspect relevant to the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that in view of the report received from the learned Court below, it is evident that the matter has been resolved and private parties have effected a compromise, and there remains no dispute amongst them requiring any adjudication. Further submits that in view of the compromise so effected between the private parties, pendency of the FIR and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law, and the same may be quashed. 5. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for private respondent(s), after going through the statements and the report received from learned Court below, very fairly admit that the private parties have resolved their dispute and effected a compromise and that they have no objection if the FIR (supra) and all the consequential proceedings are quashed on the basis of the compromise. 6. Through catena of judgments, Hon’ble the Apex Court and High Courts (including Punjab and Haryana High Court), have culled out various principles of law concerning quashing of proceedings emanating SANGEETA 2025.02.21 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document after lodging of FIR, and some of them are as under:- CRM-M-28532-2024 3 Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 582 BNSS can be exercised to enhance social amity, and to reduce friction. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 582 BNSS in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 582 BNSS "to prevent abuse of the process of any Court" or "to secure the ends of justice”. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) Cr.P.C./Section 359 BNSS, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./Section 582 of the BNSS. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. High Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C./Section 359 BNSS, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 582 BNSS is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. Such power has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. Matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or where nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or involves commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of SANGEETA 2025.02.21 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28532-2024 4 FIR would override the public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties. In this regard, judgments cited are: 1. 2. 3. 4. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (SC); Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 (SC); Ramgopal and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834 (SC); and Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 [P&H FB] 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, this Court finds that there appears to be substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that pendency of the present criminal litigation would be abuse of process of law since the chances of conviction of the petitioners are bleak in view of the compromise, so effected between the private parties. 8. The report alongwith statements of the affected parties received from learned Court below would reveal that the complainant/victim person(s) has genuinely effected a compromise with the petitioners and he has no objection, if the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed. 9. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the report received by this Court and also, taking into consideration the aforementioned settled principles of law, this petition is accepted and FIR (as detailed in para No. 1 above) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, in view of compromise dated 24.04.2024 (Annexure P-2). 10.
Decision
Petition stands disposed of. February 20, 2025 Sangeeta (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No SANGEETA 2025.02.21 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document