Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Ajay Bansal & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 50273 of 2019
Decided On : 04-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Davinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the voluntary nature of the settlement, the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence, and the exercise of inherent power for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of FIR - 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC - Ss 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - C.B.I., New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, 1996(5) SCC 591 - Manoj Sharma v. State, 2008(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 827 : 2008(16) SCC 1 - Nikhil Merchant vs C.B.I. & Anr, Cr.A 1302 of 2008 - Jayrajsinh Digvijaysingh Rana v. State of Gujarat, 2012 (12) SCC 401 - Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagjit Singh, (2013) 10 SCC 686 - Gold Quest International Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 15 SCC 235 - Parbatbhai Aahir v State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 - Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr.A 1489 of 2012 - Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639 - Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person. The accused and the aggrieved person compromised the matter, and the aggrieved person consented to the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the settlement between the accused and the aggrieved person was voluntary and not secured through coercion. It concluded that the exercise of inherent power for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings was justified to secure the ends of justice.
Issues: The issues involved the voluntary nature of the settlement, the impact on public peace and tranquillity, and the exercise of inherent power for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the settlement between the accused and the aggrieved person was voluntary and not secured through coercion. It also emphasized the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence and the need to consider the impact on public peace and tranquillity. The Court invoked the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s) and discharged the petitioner's bail bonds.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
226	20.06.2019	Pinjore, District Panchkula	420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC

1. The petitioner, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person.

2. 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.

3. After that, the petitioner came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent.

4. On 29-04-2022, the aggrieved person Sheemu Bansal, (R-2) stated before the SDJM, Kalka and stated that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 29-04-2022, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. Despite the severe opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

a) The accused and the private respondent have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means;

c) The aggrieved person has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondent in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

f) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

g) There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, or professional offender;

h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society;

i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. In the present case the offences under Ss 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

7. In C.B.I., New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, 1996(5) SCC 591, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[26]. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties, it appears to us that for the purpose of quashing the complaint, it is necessary to consider whether the allegation in the complaint prima facie make out an offence or not. It is not necessary to scrutinise whether the allegations are likely to be upheld in the trial. Any action by way of quashing the complaint is an action to be taken at the threshold before evidences are led in support of the complaint. For quashing the complaint by way of action at the threshold, it is, therefore, necessary to consider whether on the face of the allegations, a criminal offence is constituted or not.

[29]. In the facts of the case, it appears to us that there is enough justification for the High Court to hold that the case was basically a matter of civil dispute. The Banks had already filed suits for recovery of the dues of the Banks on account of credit facility and the said suits have been compromised on receiving the payments from the concerned Companies. Even if an offence of cheating is prima facie