Rohtas and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Jaswant Singh, J.—Prayer is u/s 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No. 61 dated 20.03.1999 under Sections 148, 149, 452, 323, 506, 325 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Sadar Rohtak, District Rohtak and all the subsequent proceedings arising there from on the basis of compromise dated 20.09.2010(Annexure P-3).

As per allegations in the FIR levelled by complainant Brahm Parkash, on 20.3.1999 he was present in his house. The grand daughter of his uncle namely Ranu came to him and told that her grandfather was crying at his house. Upon this complainant reached the house of Khem Chand and saw that five persons were present there out of whom one person namely Ram Bhagat and two other persons whose name complainant do not know were armed with pistolsand Petitioner-Rohtas was having lathiand Asha Nand was having jellyin his hand. They all inflicted injuries on the person of Khem Chand and when Brahm Parkash tried to save Khem Chand he was also given injuries by the accused persons including Petitioner-Rohtash. Petitioners No. 4 & 5 namely Meenakshi and Risalo also inflicted injuries on the person of complainant by throwing brickbats.

While issuing notice of motion parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court by making appropriate application for getting their statements recorded in terms of the compromise and who shall submit its report regarding the genuineness of the compromise.

Report (Mark-A) in the shape of letter of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak duly forwarded by learned District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide letter dated 30.11.2010 accompanied by photocopy of statement of both parties has been received wherein it is stated that the parties appeared before that court and suffered statements recorded separately in terms of the compromise thereby stated that the matter between the parties has been compromised and complainant has no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed against the Petitioners.

From the report submitted it is evident that the dispute between the Petitioners-accused and the complainant has been amicably resolved by entering into compromise wherein the complainants have stated that they have no objection if the present FIR against the Petitioners-accused is quashed.

Learned State Counsel is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the statements recorded in terms of the aforesaid compromise whereby the complainants are not willing to support the case of the prosecution.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers u/s 482 of the Code.

A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2007(3) RCR 1052 has also held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non-compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:

The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court u/s 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar u/s 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

Hon''ble Apex Court in another case in Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi''s case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise.

Similar views were expressed by Hon''ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, , the relevant extract of which is as under:

We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.

Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that the dispute is between two groups in the same village over the opening of a window in a street and there is version and cross version and that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 61 dated 20.03.1999 under Sections 148, 149, 452, 323, 506, 325 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Sadar Rohtak, District Rohtak and the subsequent proceedings arising there from are quashed against the Petitioners.