SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J.
Aman – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-6502 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advocate, for, Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana., Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The voluntary nature of the compromise, absence of coercion, and the impact on public interest are crucial factors in deciding to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise.

Headnote:

Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - IPC 323, 34, 427, 506 and Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989 - The court discussed the legal provisions and principles related to quashing of criminal proceedings based on compromise, emphasizing the voluntary nature of the compromise, absence of coercion, and the impact on public interest. The court referred to the judgments in the cases of Gian Singh, Ramgopal, and Kulwinder Singh to support its decision to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings based on the compromise between the parties.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition to quash FIR for various offenses under IPC and the Prevention of Atrocities Act, based on a compromise between the parties. The affected parties appeared before the court and confirmed the voluntary nature of the compromise.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compromise between the parties was genuine and voluntary, and that the pendency of the criminal litigation would be an abuse of process of law. The court accepted the petition and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings based on the compromise.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court should quash the FIR and consequential proceedings based on the compromise between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principles related to quashing of criminal proceedings based on compromise, emphasizing the voluntary nature of the compromise, absence of coercion, and the impact on public interest.

Final Decision: The petition was accepted, and the FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed based on the compromise between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. - The present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by Aman, for quashing of FIR No. 583, dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure P-1), for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 34, 427 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Gharunda, District Karnal, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure P-2).

2. Vide order dated 15.02.2022, the affected parties were directed to appear before concerned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was to submit a report in this regard giving certain details as enumerated in the said order.

3. Pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2022, passed by this Court, the parties appeared before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, and as per report dated 29.03.2022, submitted to this Court, both the parties have got recorded their respective statements in Court. The operative part of the report received from learned Court below is as under:-

    '....The complainant Dinesh made a statement that a compromise has been effected between him and the accused and he placed on record the original compromise deed. He has further stated that compromise has been entered by him without any pressure, greed and out of his own free will and has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. Accused Aman also made a statement that he has entered into a compromise with complainant and he has put his signatures on the compromise deed. He has further prayed that the present FIR against him may kindly be quashed.

    The parties have assured the undersigned that they are satisfied with the compromise. The parties have been duly identified by their counsel. In my opinion, the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence as both the parties had assembled in the court and made the statements voluntarily. The copies of statements of both the parties along-with copy of compromise is being enclosed for your kind perusal.

    The Hon'ble High Court has also sought information as to whether all the accused appearing before the Court are on bail. In this regard Investigating Officer was summoned who made a statement that there is only one accused Aman son of Satbir who is yet to be arrested in the present case. As regards to the information regarding any criminal case pending against the accused-petitioner, the Investigating Officer has stated that no other criminal case is pending against the accused-petitioner."

    4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the matter has been resolved and private parties have effected a compromise dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure P-2). At present, there remains no dispute amongst the private parties. He further submits that in view of the compromise so effected between the private parties, pendency of the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law.

    5. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for respondent No. 2, after going through the statements and the report received from learned Court below, very fairly admit that the private parties have resolved their dispute and effected a compromise and that they have no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings are quashed on the basis of the compromise.

    6. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, has observed as under:

      '(28) To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top