IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.
Parveen - Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 3914 of 2018
Decided On : 14-03-2019
Compromise - Criminal Law - Section 379 of IPC - Section 320 Cr.P.C. - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and Section 482 Cr.P.C. and their applicability in recognizing compromises between parties in criminal disputes. The court also highlighted the legal position established by the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 4 RCR(Cri) 543, regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings in cases of compromise.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction under Section 379 of IPC. The parties later compromised the matter, and the court considered the genuineness of the compromise and the impact on society. The court ultimately quashed the proceedings and acquitted the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise between the parties was genuine and in the interest of justice, leading to the quashing of the proceedings and the acquittal of the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the recognition of compromise in criminal disputes, the impact on society, and the applicability of legal provisions such as Section 320 Cr.P.C. and Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to balance the wishes of the parties with the impact on society, and cited the legal position established by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh case regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings in cases of compromise.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the proceedings, and ordered the acquittal of the petitioner.
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.
This is a revision petition challenging the judgment dated 03.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction dated 05.01.2016 and order of sentence dated 06.01.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, vide which, the petitioner was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo 02 year of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, was upheld.
2. During the pendency of the present petition, the parties appeared to have compromised the matter. Therefore, an application i.e. CRM No.1698-2019 was filed by the petitioner for accepting the compromise and quashing of FIR No.91, dated 23.03.2012, registered under Section 379 of IPC at Police Station Nissing and all the subsequent proceedings thereon. A prayer was made by the counsel for the petitioner, to send the parties to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded qua the compromise arrived at between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, the parties may be permitted to compound the offence; and by setting aside the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioner be ordered to be acquitted of the charges.
4. Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate for Mr. Parveen Maan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant, did not dispute the compromise arrived at between the parties. He had expressed his no objection for compounding of the offence; as prayed for by the counsel for the petitioner.
5. Therefore, on 31.01.2019, the following order was passed by this Court:-
"CRM-1698-2019
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is disposed of by taking the affidavit on record.
Accordingly affidavit, attached with the application, is ordered to be taken on record.
Since the matter has been compromised between the parties, therefore, the hearing of the main case and the application for suspension of sentence is pre-poned to today.
CRR-3914-2018
While relying upon the affidavit placed on record, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter has since been compromised between the parties.
Notice already stands issued in this case. On asking of the Court, Mr. Vikas Malik, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Parveen Mann, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to hand over a copy of the petition to the opposite counsels during the course of the day.
Let the parties now appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 11.02.2019 or any other date convenient to the Court for recording their statements with regard to compromise. The Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate is directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate is also directed to send a report along with statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties and also intimate whether any criminal proceedings are pending against either of the parties or not, before the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 14.03.2019.
CRM-42507-2018
Since the parties have compromised the matter, therefore, it would not be unjustified if the petitioner is released on interim bail by temporarily suspending the sentence.
Accordingly it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on interim bail on his furnishing bail bonds/sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate."
6. In compliance of above said order, report of Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Karnal, dated 08.03.2019, has
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.