Back
2018 Supreme(J&K) 238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Deepak Goel & anr. - Appellants
Versus
State and ors. - Respondents
CRMC No.631 of 2016 & 31 of 2017 & OWP No.217 of 2017
Decided on : 21-05-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M. A. Goni, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. S. Kotwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG. Mr. Amit Chopra, GA. Mr. Pranav Kohli, Advocate. Mr. R. S. Jamwal, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, considering the lack of prospect for conviction and the impact on the trial.
Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of FIRs - Sections 341/307/323/120-B RPC & 4/25 Arms Act, Sections 339/340/341/342/347/348/351/352/500/511RPC, Sections 323/341/384/386/504/506/109 RPC - The court discussed the compromise deeds executed between the parties and the legal provisions related to compounding of offenses. The court referred to the judgments in Narinder Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab & anr., Yogendra Yadav & ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & anr., Central Bureau of Investigation vs Sadhu Ram Singla & ors, and Central Bureau of Investigation vs Sadhu Ram Singla & ors to support its decision to quash the FIRs based on the compromise between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of FIRs and warrants issued by the court. The complainant and accused parties entered into compromise deeds, and their statements were recorded by the Registrar Judicial. The court considered the compromise and previous similar cases before allowing the petitions and quashing the FIRs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had entered into a compromise, settled the matter, and prayed for allowing the petitions. It also considered the legal provisions related to compounding of offenses and the impact of the compromise on the trial, leading to the decision to quash the FIRs.
Issues: The issues involved the quashing of FIRs based on the compromise between the parties, the authenticity of the compromise deeds, and the legal provisions related to compounding of offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the parties' compromise, the lack of prospect for conviction due to the compromise, and the legal principles related to compounding of offenses as discussed in relevant judgments.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the FIRs and proceedings initiated thereafter in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
1. In petition being 561-A No.631/2016, petitioners therein seek quashing of FIR No.69/2016 dated 26.10.2016 registered at Police Station Sunderbani, Rajouri, under Sections 341/307/323/120-B RPC & 4/25 Arms Act as also for quashing of warrants issued by JMIC Sunderbani. Ramanuj Singh is the complainant in FIR No.69/2016. In petition being 561-A No.31/2017, petitioners therein seek quashing of complaint, order dated 29.12.2016 passed by Sub Judge, JMIC Jammu & FIR No.170/2016 dated 31.12.2016 registered at Police Station Pacca Danga, Jammu, under Sections 339/340/341/342/347/348/351/352/500/511RPC. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal is the complainant in FIR No.170/2016. In petition being OWP No.217/2017, petitioners seek quashing of complaint titled Ajay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Deepak Goel & ors. along with order passed by CJM Samba under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and for quashing of FIR No.08/2017 registered at Police Station Samba under Sections 323/341/384/386/504/506/109 RPC. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal is the complainant in FIR No.08/2017.
2. Since complainant and accused persons involved in all the three FIRs are almost the same, I propose to dispose of these three petitions vide common order.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court vide orders dated 29.11.2016, 17.01.2017 & 22.02.2017 passed in CRMC No.631/2016, CRMC No.31/2016 & OWP No.217/2017 respectively, stayed the investigation in all the FIRs.
4. There are three separate applications moved in each petition whereby seeking compounding of the offences by placing on record compromise deeds executed between the parties. In two FIRs viz. FIR No.170/2016 & FIR No.08/2017, a common compromise deed has been produced.
5. This Court vide order dated 01.08.2017, directed the complainant and the accused persons i.e. Devendra Goel, Ramanuj Singh, Ajay Kumar Aggarwal and their witnesses with their respective counsel, to appear before Registrar Judicial for recording statements with regard to authenticity of compromise deed.
6. Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of the Devendra Goel, Ramanuj Singh, Ajay Kumar Aggarwal and one Somesh Roy. Statements so recorded are placed on record and the same read as under:-
“Statement of Devendra Goel, age 45 years, S/o Lt. Purushottam Das Goel R/o 4, Alipore, Park Place Kolkatta on oath today i.e. 09.08.2017. Complainant states that in FIR No.69/2016 registered at Police Station, Sunderbani for offences under Section 323/307/120-B RPC and 4/25 Arms Act is subject matter of challenge in Petition 561-A No.631/2016 titled Deepak Goel Vs. State and ors. That the complainant in said FIR, Ramanuj Singh and Deepak Goel and deponent has entered into compromise deed to bury the hatches between the parties and to live in good relationship in future. The compromise deed already placed on record is authentic one and I admit the contents thereof, to be true and correct.
Statement of Ramanuj Singh, age 44 years, S/o Late Sh. Ramjit Singh R/o 19/13, Rampur, Ganguly Lane, Howrah, West Bengal, on oath today i.e. 09.08.2017. Complainant states that he has entered into compromise with the accused parties namely Deepak Goel and Devendra Goel, both sons of Sh. Purushottam Das Goel, R/o Alipore Park Place, Kolkatta in compromise deed and have agreed that he should have no objection in case FIR No.69/2016 which is subject of challenge in petition 561-A No.631/2016 titled Deepak Goel Vs. State of J&K. He further stated that both the parties have many common friends and elderly well wishers both in business and private; they after having come to know about the relation between the parties intervened and made both the parties to sit together and resolve the differences and bury the hatches. He further stated that the parties got convinced that for better relationship in future and to have good business relationship, the litigation between parties will not only be fruitless and but also detrimental to the business interest of both the parties. He further stated that in th
