AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anoop Chitkara, J
FIR No.
Dated
Police Station
Sections
55
20.09.2019
GRP Jind.
34 & 379-B
The petitioners, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person.
During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.
After that, the petitioners came up before this Court to quash the FIR, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent no.2.
This court had asked the parties to appear before the concerned court and had asked the said court to give its report as per the format. The report reads as follows:
Name of the reporting Court
Additional Sessions Judge, Jind
FIR No.
Dated
Police Station
Sections
55
20.09.2019
GRP Jind.
34 & 379-B
Criminal Case no.
before trial Court
CIS No.81-2020
1.
Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s)
Sonu son of Indraj Bhatia aged 24 years r/o Ward No.19, Tohana, District
Fatehabad
2.
Dates on which the statement(s) of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved
persons(s) were recorded
12.01.2023
Statement attached as ‘Mark-A’
3.
Has the identity of the complainant/
victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified?
Yes
4.
Whether all the victims/ all the aggrieved persons have compromised
the matter?
Yes
5.
Is there pressure, threat, or coercion
upon the victim(s)/aggrieved person(s)/complainant?
No
6.
Names of the accused person(s)
Pawan Kumar son of Rampal, aged 25 years, r/o Gali No.11, Hari Nagar, Narwana.
Ravi son of Gulab Singh, aged 23 years, r/o Gali No.10, Hari Nagar, Narwana.
Pankaj alias Panki s/o Balwan, r/o Gali No.09, Hari Nagar, Narwana. (FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua him have already been quashed vide order dated 14.7.2022 of the Hon’ble
High Court in CRM-M-27495 of 2020).
7.
Dates on which the statement(s) of the
accused persons(s) recorded
09.01.2023 (statements are attached
as Mark-B and Mark-C)
8.
Whether all the accused have compromised the matter? If no, then the names of the accused who have
compromised.
Yes
9.
Whether proclamation proceedings
are pending against any accused?
No
10.
Has the police report been filed or
not?
Yes
11.
Notice of accusation /Charges have
been framed or not?
Yes
12.
Sections of statutes invoked in the
matter
379-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
13.
Whether the court is satisfied with the
genuineness of the compromise?
Yes
ANALYSIS & REASONING:
Despite the opposition of the State’s counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition. In the present case, all the offences are compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. Given the legislative mandate, the prosecution can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.
In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.
In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise, placement of parties, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise deed and its objectives point towards its acceptance.
In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds “[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stand vitiated.”
Considering the entire facts, compromise, and in the light of the above-mentioned judicial precedents, I believe that continuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s). The bail bonds of the petitioners are accordingly discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
Petition allowed in the terms mentioned above.