Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Vikas & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 7931 of 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rahul Singla, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana., Mr. Virender Soni, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4, for the Respondent

The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding based on a settlement between the offender and the victim, even if the offence is non-compoundable, to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

Headnote:
Quashing of FIR - Compromise - Sections 323, 324, 34, 452, 506 IPC - Section 320 of CrPC - Section 482 CrPC - Supreme Court precedents
Fact of the Case:

The accused petitioned to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on a compromise with the victims. The victims consented to the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.
Finding of the Court:

The Court invoked the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings. The bail bonds of the petitioners were discharged.
Issues: Quashing of FIR based on compromise, non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of CrPC
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the settlement between the accused and the victims, absence of coercion, and the nature of the offences to exercise inherent power under Section 482 CrPC. It relied on Supreme Court precedents to justify the quashing of the FIR.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
678	06.12.2021	Sector 32-33 Karnal, District Karnal	323, 324, 34, 452, 506 IPC

1. The petitioners arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victims.

2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the victims 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, the victims have been impleaded as respondent(s).

4. On 7th and 8th Mar 2022, the victims/ complainant Sandeep Panwar, respondent no. 2; Sunil Panwar respondent no. 3 & Navjot, respondent no. 4 stated before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 10-3-2022, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. Despite the 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(s) 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 victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondents 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 the FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. The offence under section 324& 452 IPC arenon-compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, without adjudicating this point, 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 Ram Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 2 SCC 149, Supreme Court holds,

The appellants, who are the accused and the complainant, Shri Ram, who was the person injured as a result of firing, have appeared before us and stated that they wish to compound the offence. The offence for which both the appellants have been convicted is one under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by Shri Ram, we think that the proper offence for which the appellants should have been convicted was under Section 324 read with Section 34. Shri Ram received only one injury on the shoulder and that was also in the nature of simple hurt. We would, therefore, convert the conviction of the appellants to one under Section 324 read with Section 34. Since the parties belong to the same village and desire to compound the offence, we think, in the larger interest of peace and harmony between the parties and having regard to the nature of the injury, that it would be proper to allow the parties to compound the offence.

8. In Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[13]. It is manifest that