Jagdish vs State of Haryana

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 226, dated 25.5.2008, under Sections 148, 285, 323, 324, 325 and 326 read with Section 149, IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Palwal, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise.

Vide order dated 21.1.2014, the affected parties were directed to appear on 10.2.2014, before the learned Trial Court for getting their respective statements with regard to the compromise recorded. The said Court was also directed to submit its detailed report in that regard along with copies of the statements to this Court on or before the adjourned date.

In compliance of the above order, all the petitioners, namely, Jagdish, Bishan, Amit, Pardeep and Shyambati, as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 5, namely, Naval Dei, Bimlesh, Gyan Singh and Saroj Bai, did appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palwal, and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The certified copies of the said statements have been produced today in the Court by the learned counsel for the private respondents, which are taken on record.

Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in their statements stated that they had effected a compromise with the petitioners. Similar statements were suffered by the petitioners. The report received from the learned Trial Court reveals that the compromise effected between the parties is without any fear and coercion. The same has been effected so that the parties can live peacefully in future.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was long standing enmity between both the private factions. However, due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, better sense has prevailed and both the private factions have sorted out their disputes and effected a compromise. He further contends that the private respondents were prosecuted for different offences under the Indian Penal Code and ultimately held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 452 and 459 read with Section 149, IPC, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, and during pendency of the appeal of the said case, being CRA-S-1014-SB-2012, titled as "Nain Singh @ Nem Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others", the compromise was also effected and on the basis thereof, the said appeal has been disposed of by this Court by reducing the sentence of the appellants (Nain Singh and others) to the period already undergone. He further contends that the compromise so effected between the private parties would not only bring peace between them, but will also be beneficial to the larger interest of the society. It has also been contended that the offences for which the petitioners have been booked, are personal in nature. The injuries suffered by Gyan Singh, Bimlesh, Naval Dei and Saroj Bai have healed and now all of them are performing their daily pursuits. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgments in the matters of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another,

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Satish Kumar of Police Station, Sadar, Palwal, very fairly admits the factum of the compromise. He has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed on the basis of the compromise. However, he submits that in view of the fact that the petitioners have consumed valuable time of the public authorities as also of the Courts, therefore, they should be burdened with heavy costs.

Learned counsel for the private respondents has also toed the line of the learned counsel for the State and admits the factum of the compromise. He also admits that in yet another case in which the private respondents were accused, a compromise has already been effected and, therefore, the said criminal case has been decided while taking into consideration the compromise. He further submits that both the private factions have buried all the litigation on account of the compromise effected at the behest of the elderly people of the society. He fairly concedes that the injured persons have no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

It is true that few offences for which the petitioners have been charged are non-compoundable, but while going through the FIR and other material available on record, it clearly depicts that on account of previous enmity between the private parties the quarrel had originated and as a result of which respondent Nos. 2 to 5 had suffered injuries. All the injuries on their person have healed and now they are leading normal life. Due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society both the private factions have sorted out their disputes and effected a compromise. The statements of the injured persons with regard to the compromise have already been recorded by the learned Trial Court.

Learned counsel for the parties are in unison in their submission with regard to the execution of the compromise. They have also admitted that the injured persons did appear before the learned Court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise.

It is also true that multiple litigations were going on between both the private factions, but due to intervention of the senior persons of the society, they have already buried all their disputes and effected a compromise. It will be in the larger interest of the society to accept their compromise at this stage. The report received from the learned Trial Court also reveals that the compromise so effected was without any fear or threat.

Taking into consideration the ratio of the judgments delivered in the cases of Gian Singh (supra) and Kulwinder Singh (supra), the pendency of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom would be an abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak. In Gian Singh''s case (supra), Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the penultimate para of the judgment has observed as under:-

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 u/s 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 pre-dominatingly 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 personal 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.

As a sequel to the above discussion, this petition is accepted and FIR No. 226, dated 25.5.2008, under Sections 148, 285, 323, 324, 325 and 326 read with Section 149, IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Palwal, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. However, I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the State that for the last several years the petitioners are consuming time of the public authorities as well as Courts, therefore, they should be burdened with costs. As such, each of the petitioners is ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/-( Rs. 10,000/- x 5 = Rs. 50,000/-) as costs, to be deposited with the learned Trial Court within two months of passing of this order. In case the petitioners fail to comply with this order, the respondent State would be at liberty to move an application for re-calling of the present order.