Punjab-Haryana High CourtArvind Kumar And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 10 September, 2015Author:Rameshwar Singh MalikBench:Rameshwar Singh MalikCrl.Misc. No.M-24086 of 2015                                                     1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                         AT CHANDIGARH.


                                                              Crl.Misc. No.M-24086 of 2015
                                                              Date of Decision : 10.9.2015

            Arvind Kumar and another                                     ......Petitioners

                                           Vs.

            State of Haryana and another                                 ......Respondents

                                                 ...CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
                                  ...Present :          Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners.Mr. M.K. Sangwan, DAG, Haryana.Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for respondent no.2....1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?2. Whether the judgement should be reported in Digest ?


            RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J

                               The petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant

            petition underSection 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short

            'Cr.P.C.') invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR No.355 dated

            23.6.2015 underSections 384,34of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short),

            registered at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh and the consequential

            proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).Notice of motion was issued.In compliance of the order dated 24.7.2015 passed by this Court,

            the parties got their statements recorded before the learned trial court.

            Consequently, report dated 31.7.2015 sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist

            Class, Bhadurgarh has been received which is available on record of the caseGREESH SAHNI2015.09.11 15:53I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentChandigarhCrl.Misc. No.M-24086 of 2015                                                     2alongwith the statements of the parties. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

            Bahadurgarh, has reported that the parties have made their statements

            voluntarily and without any pressure. The compromise arrived at between the

            parties has been found to be a genuine one.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have

            decided to bury the hatchet and are living peacefully. Learned counsel for the

            petitioners further submits that           continuation of the impugned FIR and

            subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed in

            the interest of justice.Learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as learned counsel for

            the state are ad idem that, none of the petitioners is a proclaimed offender.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going

            through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a

            fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court underSection 482Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice. It is so said because the parties have

            arrived at an out of Court settlement by way of compromise (Annexure P-2).

            The compromise is without any pressure and a genuine one. In such a situation,

            continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law.The abovesaid view taken by this Court also finds support from the

            judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inShiji @ Pappu and

            others versus Radhika and another, 2012 (1) RCR (criminal) 9 and also

            from the larger Bench judgment of this Court inKulwinder Singh and others

            versus State of Punjab and anotherreported as 2007 (3) RCR (criminal)

            1052.The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 of the

            judgment inShiji's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present

            case, read as under:GREESH SAHNI2015.09.11 15:53I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentChandigarhCrl.Misc. No.M-24086 of 2015                                                               3"It is manifest that simply because an offence is

                               not compoundable underSection 320IPC is by itself no

                               reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its

                               power underSection 482Cr.P.C. That power can in our

                               opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of

                               recording a conviction against the accused and the entire

                               exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility.

                               There is a subtle distinction between compounding of

                               offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal

                               on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court

                               to quash the prosecution underSection 482Cr.P.C.

                               on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an

                               appeal against conviction, may not be competent to

                               permit

                               compounding of an offence based on a settlement

                               arrived at between the parties in cases where the

                               offences    are      not compoundable            underSection       320,

                               the High Court may quash the prosecution even in

                               cases     where      the      offences    with     which the        accused

                               stand     charged       are       non-compoundable.             The inherent

                               powers      of    the      High      Court       underSection       482Cr.P.C. are       not      for     that     purpose       controlled        bySection     320Cr.P.C. Having            said      so,      we    must

                               hasten     to     add      that     the     plenitude      of the      power

                               underSection      482Cr.P.C.     by      itself,     makes     it

                               obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same withGREESH SAHNI2015.09.11 15:53I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentChandigarhCrl.Misc. No.M-24086 of 2015                                                        4utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the

                                     power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and

                                     only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be

                                     recorded, of the clear view that        continuance   of       the

                                     prosecution    would    be   nothing     but   an abuse of the

                                     process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for         us

                                     to enumerate the situations in which the exercise

                                     of power underSection 482may be justified. All that we

                                     need to say is that the exercise of power must be for

                                     securing the ends of justice and only in cases where

                                     refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of

                                     the process of law. The High court may be justified in

                                     declining     interference   if    it     is   called upon to

                                     appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an

                                     appellate court while dealing with a petition underSection

                                     482of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above,

                                     the High Court will have to consider the facts and

                                     circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit

                                     case in which the inherent powers may be invoked."The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiji's case

            (supra) has been further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its later

            judgments including in the cases of Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of

            Gujarat and another, 2012 (12) SCC 401, Gold Quest International Private

            Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2014 (4) RCR (Crl) 206, Manohar

            Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2014 AIR (SC) 3649 and

            Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCCGREESH SAHNI2015.09.11 15:53I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentChandigarhCrl.Misc. No.M-24086 of 2015                                                     5466.

                               Reverting back to the facts of the present case, this Court has

            satisfied itself that the compromise arrived at between the parties is a genuine

            one. They have got their statements recorded before the learned trial court,

            without any pressure. In view of the genuine compromise arrived at between

            the parties and also in view of the report received from the learned trial court,

            this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the              continuation of the

            prosecution any further would be nothing but            sheer abuse of the process of

            law. It would result in wastage of valuable time of the Court because no chance

            of conviction is left.Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted

            above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the ends of

            justice, FIR No. 355 dated 23.6.2015 underSections 384,34IPC registered at

            Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh and the consequential proceedings arising

            therefrom, are ordered to be quashed, however, qua the petitioners only.Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made, instant petition

            stands allowed.10.9.2015                                         (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
            GS                                                        JUDGEGREESH SAHNI2015.09.11 15:53I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentChandigarh