IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 13.01.2025 Nishant ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Jyotsna Saini, Advocate, for Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

CRM-13466-2024

1. The present application has been filed for quashing of FIR No.313 dated 02.05.2015, under Sections 354-C, 509 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 10, Gurugram and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including order(s) of conviction and sentence dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram on the basis of the compromise dated 05.01.2024.

2. Ld. counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh”, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322, to contend that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the FIR and criminal proceedings even at the stage of post-conviction when appeal is pending.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file.

4. This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 08.05.2024, directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 17.05.2024 has been received from the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gurugram. A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question and subsequent proceedings including the conviction order is quashed. The compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.

6. The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non- compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court is of the view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment reads thus:-

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

xxx xxx xxx. ”

8. In the case Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) Apex Court held as under :-

“13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without sayin