Surender Alias Pathan vs State of Haryana

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 724

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Surender Alias Pathan And Others – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana And Another – Respondent
CRM-M-61435-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 29-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vikas Gulia, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana; Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
342	21.10.2020	Murthal, District Sonipat	120-B, 190, 328, 342, 355, 387, 506 IPC

The petitioner(s), arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person(s).

2. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the accused and the aggrieved person(s) have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.

3. After that, the petitioner(s) came up before this Court to quash the FIR, impleading the aggrieved persons as respondent no.2.

4. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 09.12.2024, the aggrieved person(s) (Respondent no.2) appeared before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Sonepat and stated that there would be no objection if the Court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. The relevant extract of the report of the concerned Court reads as follows:

Name of the reporting Court

Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Sonepat

Criminal Case no. before trial Court

SC/410 of 2021

1.	Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s)	Harpal
2.	Dates on which the statement(s) of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) were recorded	02.01.2025
3.	Has the identity of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified?	Yes
4.	Whether all the victims/ all the aggrieved persons have compromised the matter?	Yes
5.	Is there pressure, threat, or coercion upon the victim(s)/aggrieved person(s)/complainant?	No
6.	Names of the accused person(s)	1. Surender @ Pathan; 2. Sejal Sharma; 3. Meena; 4. Rajesh @ Kaila.
7.	Dates on which the statement(s) of the accused persons(s) recorded	02.01.2025
8.	Whether all the accused have compromised the matter? If no, then the names of the accused who have compromised.	Yes
9.	Whether proclamation proceedings are pending against any accused?	No
10.	Has the police report been filed or not?
11.	Notice of accusation /Charges have been framed or not?	Yes
12.	Sections of statutes invoked in the matter	120B, 190, 328, 342, 355, 387, 506 IPC and 25 Arms Act.
13.	Whether the court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise?	Yes

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 sections 120-B, 190, 328, 387 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) are not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)/359 BNSS. 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 Shiji @ Pappu