Basant And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J

Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. Through this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR

No.51 dated 09.02.2019, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, District Rohtak, under Sections 285 and 34 (added later on) of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 21.06.2020

(Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

Vide orders dated 27.10.2020, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all concerned parties with regard to the genuineness and validity

or otherwise of the compromise.

In compliance thereof, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, has submitted a report vide letter dated 17.12.2020 which indicates

that the parties appeared before her and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise. As per the report, the

compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine, voluntarily and without coercion or undue influence.

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.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, has held 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 committed by public servants while

working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having

overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from

commercial, financial,mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony 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.â€​

The same view has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR

(Criminal) 482.

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.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.51 dated 09.02.2019, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, District Rohtak, under Sections 285 and

34 (added later on) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are

hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise dated 21.06.2020 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties, subject to depositing

the costs of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund (PPWF) of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research

Chandigarh.

Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.