The High Court quashed an FIR and discharged petitioners upon a valid, voluntary compromise settled between the accused and victims regarding a land dispute, citing inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to secure ends of justice.
FIR quashed; proceedings arising therefrom quashed; petitioners discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
�����������������������
����������������������������
Sukhbir Singh and others ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents
Coram: ��������� ��!"��������#�$� �%���#�"#��
Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rudraneel Bhardwaj, AAG,Haryana for respondent No.1*State. Mr. Kulbir Dalal, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3
��#�$� �%��#�"#��&�!�'( ��)
By way of this petition � under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, petitioners, the accused, in First Information Report (for short, FIR) No. 139 dated 10.4.2010, under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC), (Section 307 IPC added later at the time of filing of Challan), recorded at Police Station, Sampla, District Rohtak (Annexure P1), seek quashing of the abovesaid FIR saying that the matter has been amicably settled between them and the complainant/victiim as evidenced by the deed of compromise dated 25.5.2013( Annexure P8).
It is reflected in the FIR that the parties to it are closely
Kant Nirmal 2014.03.20 19:24 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
related to one another and relations had turned sour on account of some dispute relating to land. It is also alleged in the FIR that the petitioners caused injuries to Dewan Singh and Sunil, respondents No.2 and 3, respectively. Now, with the intervention of near and dear ones, the parties to the litigation have settled the matter and have resolved to bury the hatchet.
While issuing notice of motion, the learned Illaqa Magistrate was asked to record statements of the parties concerned to find out if the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion. The learned Illaqa Magistrate has submitted a report dated 15.1.2014 affirming that the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion.
The complainant being represented through counsel, and the learned State counsel have no objection if the FIR and proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
From the above it is established that the parties to the lis have resolved the inter se dispute amicably and to live in peace and harmony. Reference may be made to a Five*Judges Bench � decision of this Court in **�"�+���� �%��,#�$��%��������-"�.��&����/'�)���� '� ��) ���������/'�) �-0���������/'�) �10��'-"�.��) ��������/'�) 21�0���������/'�)������������/'��)�21���������/'�)��3��/4�� ���/'�)�03���� , wherein � it has been held as under:
“27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted
Kant Nirmal 2014.03.20 19:24 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Criminal Procedure Code, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Kant Nirmal 2014.03.20 19:24 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extraordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and everlasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.”
It may also be of benefit to extract from � 5����%��,#�$�
**%��������-"�.��& �'%�)����'�) ��������26�7 �!"�,8�����'�2!) ��������'�)����'� ��)���������'�)��3����4������� �0!��������� '�)�03���������'�)�0�+��� ����'%�)����������'�)����0!��/4� ����'�)�� �����//�������'��)�%������������21��'%�)'� �)��/�4� ����'� �0! ����������'�) �21�0����������'�) �� �8���'%�) ��������'�)�%�209���/�����'�)�:0��'%�)�� �8�����/��&�* following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:
“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
Kant Nirmal 2014.03.20 19:24 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre*dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would
Kant Nirmal 2014.03.20 19:24 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
It is anybody’s guess that the parties having entered a compromise, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and that being so continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and extreme injustice. Rather it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice, or say abuse of the process of the Court, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. Ends of justice would be met only if the criminal proceedings are put to an end because this would allow the parties to translate their desire to live in peace into reality. The only consideration for the compromise reached between the parties seems to be their desire to bury the hatchet for all times to come. The compromise is also found to be in the interest of public at large, for, it will add to the peace of the society and will promote peaceful coexistence. The Courts are bound to play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and everlasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of the Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or
Kant Nirmal 2014.03.20 19:24 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
would promote savagery
In the consequence, I accept the petition, quash the FIR
in question and the proceedings arising therefrom and discharge the petitioners/accused.
March 19,2014 (MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN) nk ��������������� JUDGE
Kant Nirmal 2014.03.20 19:24 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 324, 506, and 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC should be quashed upon a valid compromise between parties.
Whether the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash FIR despite sections being non-compoundable.
Sukhbir Singh
State of Haryana
MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
