Angrej Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J

This common order shall dispose of above noted two petitions as they arise out of the same incident.

Prayer in CRM-M-9083-2018 is for quashing of the FIR No. 225 dated 30.07.2012, under Sections 148, 149, 307, 426, 325, 324, 323, 452 and 120-B of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and

prayer in CRM-M-16982-2018 is for quashing of complaint No. 35 of 2015, instituted on 17.02.2014 under Sections 147, 149, 307, 326, 325, 324, 323,

452 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 27/54/59 of the Arms Act as well as summoning order dated 15.02.2017, on the basis of the compromise

arrived at between the parties.

Brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR along with the cross version was registered against both the sets of petitioners in the present

petitions. The police during investigation do not take any action on the cross version and thereafter, the complainant Angrez Singh preferred to file

aforesaid complaint in which, vide order dated 15.02.2017, Gulab Singh and others were summoned and are facing trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in both the cases who are respective counsel for the complainant in the other case, are ad idem that there is no

opinion of the doctor to declare that the injury sustained by both the complainants was dangerous to life and, therefore, offence under Section 307 is

not made out. It is also submitted that even the summoning order was passed under Section 326 IPC, however, since both the cases were version and

cross-version and in the FIR version, the police has submitted the report of 173 Cr.P.C. under Section 307 IPC, both the cases were committed to the

Court of Sessions.

Vide order dated 01.06.2018 passed in CRM-M-16298-20189, both the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court was

directed to record the statements of the parties and submit a report regarding number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR; whether any accused

is proclaimed offender; whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence and whether any accused person is

involved in any other FIR. The trial Court was also directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer to find out the total number of

victims/complainant in the FIR.

In compliance of the above said direction, Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra has submitted his report dated 04.07.2018 and as per the report, all

the accused persons, both in FIR case as well as in complaint case, have appeared before the trial Court and got recorded their respective statement.

The trial Court has thus recorded a finding that since the parties belong to the same village and are family members, in order to bury their dispute, they

have decided to live in peace and harmony. On the basis of the statements of the persons, it is also stated that the compromise is effected between the

parties without any fear, coercion or pressure.

The trial Court has submitted its report that petitioner No. 3 Karnail Singh son of Afsar Singh, in complaint case, was declared a proclaimed offender

pursuant to the summoning order.

A perusal of the allegations in the FIR reveals that the present case squarely falls in the category of cases that can be quashed by the High Court, in

exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code. Keeping in view authoritative enunciation of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court of India in “Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and anotherâ€, 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 54 3and in the light of facts and circumstances of the

present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and it is

expedient in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings are put to an end.

As per the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 105,2 High Court has

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that

the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not

confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal

proceedings to continue.

Considering the fact that there are around 15 accused persons from both the sides, I deem it appropriate to quash the order dated 18.07.2017,

declaring petitioner No. 3 Karnail Singh as a proclaimed offender, as no useful purpose will be served if the proceedings are allowed to continue

against him in view of the fact that both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and have decided to live in peace and harmony.

Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. FIR No. 225 dated 30.07.2012, under Sections 148, 149, 307, 426, 325, 324, 323, 452 and 120-B of the IPC

and Section 27/54/59 of the Arms Act Section, registered at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra; complaint No. 35 of 2015, instituted on

17.02.2014 under Sections 147, 149, 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 452 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 27/54/59 of the Arms Act as well as summoning

order dated 15.02.2017 and order dated 18.07.2017, declaring petitioner No. 3 Karnail Singh (in complaint case) and all the consequential proceedings,

arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the both the sets of petitioners herein.

However, this order shall be subject to payment of costs in the sum of `5,000/- by each party, to be deposited with the District Legal Services

Authority, Kurukshetra within 8 weeks from today, failing which this order shall stand recalled automatically without reference to the Court.