Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 327
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
Rakesh Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M No. 48043 of 2023
Decided On : 29-02-2024
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Mr. H.P.S. Sandhu, Mr. Harsh Gupta, Mr. Sachin Ohri, Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Mr. Sahil Goyal, Mr. Rohit, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Aman Bansal, Ms. Puja Chopra, Mr. Deepam Ragav, Mr. Sanyam Bhardwaj, Mr. D.S. Malja, Mr. Sukhdeep S. Singh, Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Mr. Manit Malhotra, Mr. S.N. Sharma, Mr. M.S. Ganesh, Mr. Harshit Jain, Mr. N.S. Lucky, Mr. L.S. Lakhanpal, Mr. Naveen Bawa, Mr. Pawan Attri, Mr. Vishal Sharma, Mr. Govind Chauhan, Mr. Viney Saini, Mr. J.P. Jangu, Mr. S.S. Maini, Mr. Prince Pushpinder Rana, Mr. Parvesh Malik, Ms. Dimple Sharma, Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Mr. Arjun Dhingra, Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Krishan Kanha, Mr. M.S. Yadav, Mr. Sachin Gupta, Mr. B.S. Saroha, Mr. Vikrant Vij, Mr. G.S. Bawa, Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Mr. Sankalp Gehlawat, Mr. G.S. Duhan, Mr. K.S. Rawat, Mr. Akhil Sharma, Mr. G.S. Gill, Mr. Abhinav Jain, Mr. Pankaj Bains, Mr. Vishal Pundir, Mr. Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Mr. Sarvjeet Singh Thakur, Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia Advocate (Amicus Curiae), Mr. Jashandeep Singh, Mr. Digvijay Nagpal AAG, Punjab, Mr. Raghav Garg AAG, Punjab
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash FIRs based on compromises, but the effects on co-accused must be evaluated.
Headnote:
Quashing - FIR - IPC Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B - The court discussed the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs based on partial compromises, emphasizing the need for justice and the prevention of abuse of process, while also considering the implications for co-accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions sought partial quashing of FIRs based on compromises made by some accused with the complainant, while others remained unaddressed. The case primarily focused on the implications of such partial compromises on the ongoing trials.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs but raised concerns about the repercussions of partial compromises on the trials of co-accused, leading to a referral for adjudication by a larger bench.
Issues: Whether a partial compromise can justify the quashing of FIRs against some accused while affecting the trials of others, and whether this elevates the victim's role in the criminal justice system.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that while it has the power to quash FIRs based on compromises, the implications for co-accused must be carefully considered, as partial quashing could disrupt the integrity of the trial process.
Result: The matter is referred to a larger bench for adjudication on the implications of partial compromises in FIR quashing.
JUDGMENT :
Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
The amenability of all these petitions for being decided through a common verdict, stems from them being ingrained with common question(s) of law, besides emanates from identical relief(s) being craved to be reaped therein.
2. To be precise, all these petitions strive for partial quashing of FIRs, on the bedrock of partial compromises. There is no wrangle amongst the contesting litigants herein that, FIRs in all these petitions are yearned to be partially quashed, inasmuch as, not all the accused, as nominated in these FIRs, have been impleaded as petitioners therein, rather only some of the accused/petitioners herein, have entered into compromise with the complainant/private respondents concerned. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CRM-M-48043-2023, titled as “Rakesh Das V/s State of Haryana and Anr.”.
PRAYER CLAUSE (IN CRM-M-48043-2023)
3. The instant petition aims at securing the relief of quashing of FIR No.89 dated 27.02.2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC, registered at P.S. DLF Phase-II, Gurugram, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of Compromise dated 01.12.2022.
4. It would be apt to record at this juncture that, in the FIR (supra), there are total 07 accused, however, the present petition seeking quashing of FIR (supra) on the basis of compromise (supra), has been filed at the behest of only one of the accused, namely, Rakesh Das, whereas, the remaining accused have not been impleaded as a party either in the compromise (supra), or, in the instant petition.
INESSENTIALITY OF FACTS
5. Reiteratedly, since the principal issue before this Court pertains to partial quashing of FIR, on the basis of partial compromise, therefore, it would be irrelevant to augment this reference verdict with facts.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER (IN CRM-M-48043-2023)
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has, in his beseeching for grant of the desired relief(s), argued that since the role of the petitioner is segregable from his co-accused, therefore, the present FIR is fit for partial quashing qua the petitioner. He has further argued that, once the complainant/private respondent concerned has entered into a compromise with the petitioner, therefore, there is no occasion for him/her to support the case of prosecution against the petitioner; rather it would be wastage of the precious time of Court to proceed further against the petitioner, as in such circumstances, there would only be a bleak chance of petitioner’s conviction. Consequently, subjecting the petitioner to trial, despite him being absolved by the complainant, would be a sheer abuse of the process of law.
7. Furthermore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has, while making heavy dependence upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.”, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, argued that there is nothing recited in the Cr.P.C. which may be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of this Court to make such orders, as may be necessary to attain justice and to prevent the abuse of any Court.
8. Concisely, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has, apart from making reference to the hereinafter captioned judgments, relied mainly upon paragraph No.57 of Gian Singh’s judgment (supra), to argue that since the present case does not fall in any of the exceptional clauses mentioned therein, therefore, the present FIR warrants its being quashed.
“I. Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat and Anr., 2012 (12) SCC 401
II. Ramgopal and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 332
III. Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab and Anr., 2023(4) RCR (Criminal 336)
IV. Bhoj Raj v. State of Punjab and Anr., CRM-M-24945-2019
V. Vimal Kalra and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., CRM-M20355-2022"
CONCURRENT SUBMISSIONS OF ALL THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PE
