Sunil Kumar vs State of Haryana and another

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 486 days in filing the present petition is condoned.

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

CRR-1158-2018 (O&M)

Challenge has been laid to setting aside judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2015 and order of sentence dated 20.03.2015, passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra (Complaint Case No.7 of 10.07.2014), whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- as

compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. to the complainant and order/judgment dated 22.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Kurukshetra whereby the appeal against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. Complainant is present in court and suffered a statement that she

admit the contents of compromise (Anneuxre A-1) which is her affidavit. They may be allowed to compound with the offence. In view of the matter

having been compromised and that she has received entire cheque amount, she has no objection, if the conviction passed against the petitioner be set

aside and her complaint be dismissed.

In recent judgment in case titled as Smt. Anita Maria Dias and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2018 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 983,

Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed in para Nos.6 and 7, as under:-

“6) Insofar as first reason given by the High Court is concerned, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 made a categorical statement

before us on instructions from respondent No. 2 that he has, in fact, settled the matter on terms which are being taken note of above. He has further

stated that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are quashed. We find that the matter is settled by the

complainant out of his free will.

7) In a case like this, where the proceedings are still at initial and nascent stage, the High Court should have exercised its discretion in quashing the

proceedings. Law in this behalf is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court including Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.,

2017(4) R.C.R (Criminal) 523 : 2017 (5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 462 : (2017) 9 SCC 641 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012

(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543 : 2012 (4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 549 : (2012) 10 SCC 303. We may also quote the following passage from the

case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2014 (2) R.C.R (Criminal) 482 : 2014 (2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 621 : (2014) 6

SCC 466 :

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving

adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and

quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under

Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those

cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly

and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such

cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form

an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like

murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have

been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that

capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4 On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial

transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among

themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of

criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal

cases.

29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime

against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of

Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of

Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under

Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the

vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding

factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of

conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter

case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this

stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may

improve their future relationship.

29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where

the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be

liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still

on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is

still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the

circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the

evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in

such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under

Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the

appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the

offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a

heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.â€​

In Sube Singh versus State of Haryana, a Division Bench of this court has already discussed the matter where parties arrived at a compromise at

appellate stage. In that case, appeal against conviction was pending before the Sessions Court and compromise was effected between the parties. The

matter was quashed by High Court by following the ratio decidendi laid down above referred dicto.

This Court is of the opinion that the parties are allowed to compound the offence. Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2015 and

order of sentence dated 20.03.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra and impugned judgment dated 22.08.2016 passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra stand set aside.

Petitioner-Sunil Kumar be set at liberty forthwith, if in custody and his custody is not required in any other case.