Pardeep Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

CRM-M-3935-2024 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:032445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-3935-2024 (O&M) D!"# $% &#'()($*:  0+,03,2024 PARDEEP -UMAR AND OTHER.   ....PETITIONER. /0) .TATE OF HARYANA AND OTHER.   ....RE.PONDENT. CORAM:  HON1B2E MR, JU.TICE .UMEET GOE2 Present:  Mr. Vivek Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. Varinder Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG, Haryana. Mr.  anhyia Goya!, Advocate for Mr. "ajinder  umar, Advocate for respondent #o.$.

%%%%% .UMEET GOE2  3 J , &. 'y (ay of present petition, the petitioners are seekin) *uashin) of +," #o.--&- dated -..-&./-// under Sections 0/0, $-., $123A, 4-. of ,P5, re)istered at Po!ice Station, Mahesh #a)ar, and a!! conse*uentia! proceedin)s arisin) therefrom on the 6asis of compromise dated /&.&&./-/0 7Anne8ure P3/9, (hich is stated to have 6een effected 6et(een the parties. /.  :n /$.-&./-/$, the fo!!o(in) order (as passed: "The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a compromise having been effected between the parties. Notice of motion. At this stage, Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3-State and accepts notice. Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate has appeared and filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No. 4. The same be taken on record. The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner:

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 30.01.2024 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqa JATIN Magistrate for recording statements of the petitioners authenticity of this order/judgment as well as of the complainant qua the factum of CRM-M-3935-2024 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:032445

compromise. As and when any such appearance is made, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall do the needful for recording the statements of the parties qua the factum of the compromise. It shall be open to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to either record the statements of the parties by physical process or by video conferencing as deemed appropriate by the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(ii) In case the statement is to be recorded by way of video conferencing, the parties concerned shall be duly identified through video conferencing by their respective counsel, subject to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer.

(iii) The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate may also choose to get the statements of the parties recorded through some Commissioner, appointed by the Court who would be some Advocate having sufficient standing at the Bar. In case the statement is recorded through some Commissioner, such Commissioner/Advocate shall furnish an affidavit after recording statements to the effect that the parties had appeared before him/her and he/she had recorded their statements as per law and that the said parties had been duly identified by their respective counsel. This shall be subject to satisfaction of trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. After recording the statements of all the affected parties in either of the aforesaid manner, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit its report on the basis of the statements so recorded as to whether all the affected parties have entered into a compromise and as to whether the compromise in question is found to be a valid compromise and has been effected without there being any kind of influence or coercion. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall also report as regards the following facts after seeking information from Investigating Officer, concerned:

(i) Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioners, arrayed in this petition?

(ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/ aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition?

(iii) Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender? The report be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing i.e. 06.03.2024.

¶0Pursuant  to  the  aforesaid  order,   report  dated  -..-/./-/$  from ;udicia! Ma)isatrate ,st 5!ass, Am6a!a has 6een received, (hich is taken on JATIN record. As per the report, the <ria! 5ourt has recorded as fo!!o(s:3 CRM-M-3935-2024 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:032445

"I have the honour to refer to the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 24.01.2024, passed by Hon'ble High Court in CRM-M-3935-2024(O&M) titled as "Pardeep Kumar & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Ors.", whereby the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illqaua Magistrate on

30.01.2024 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqua Magistrate for recording their statements. Complainant Uma Dhiman & accused/petitioners Pardeep Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Maya Devi @ Maya Rani, Rajinder Kumar and Seema @ Seema Dhiman have come present on 05.02.2024 in the court. Their statements to the effect that they have compromised the matter with each other voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence, pressure etc. from any side have been recorded. Statement of SI Nafe Singh no.502/A PS Parao, Ambala, has been recorded today i.e. on

06.02.2024 to the effect that on the complaint of complainant Uma Dhiman, present FIR was registered against the accused Pardeep Kumar, Naresh Kumar, → Maya Devi, Rajinder Kumar and Seema. During investigation, accusedMaya Devi @ Maya Rani, Rajinder Kumar and Seema @ Seema Dhiman were found innocent. Challan against the Pardeep Kumar and Naresh Kumar was filed in the court. Neither there is any accused is proclaimed offender nor such proceedings are pending in this case. As such, from statements of the parties, I am of the opinion that the compromise arrived between the complainant and all the aforesaid accused is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. Report in the matter along-with original statements, photo-state copies of Aadhar-card of the parties & compromise Mark-A are enclosed here-with for consideration of the Hon'ble High Court, please." $. =earned counse! for respondent #o./ to $ admits the fact of parties havin) compromised and states that he has no o6jection in case the +," and a!! proceedin)s su6se*uent thereto a)ainst the petitioners are *uashed.

4.  Simi!ar!y, !earned State counse! has stated no o6jection in case the +," is *uashed 6ased upon the compromise 7Anne8ure P3/9. ..  , have heard !earned 5ounse! for the parties and have carefu!!y )one throu)h the records of the case. >. <his 5ourt and the Hon?6!e Ape8 5ourt has repeated!y dea!t (ith the issue of  e8ercise  of jurisdiction under Section $2/  of the  5ode to  *uash proceedin) in non3compounda6!e offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kul inder Singh ! others vs. State of Punjab ! another, 200" (3) #C# (Cri$inal) 10%2 and #a$ Go&al and another I attest to the accuracy andvs. State of 'adh(a Pradesh, 2021()) #.C.#. (Cri$inal) 322 (Cri$inal *&&eal CRM-M-3935-2024 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:032445

+o.1),- of 2012 de.ided on 2-th of Se&te$ber, 2021). <he proposition of !a( that emer)es from the aforesaid decisions rendered 6y the Hon?6!e Ape8 5ourt and this 5ourt is :

(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code.

(b) However, wider the power greater the caution.

(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.

(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.

(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.

(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise. CRM-M-3935-2024 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:032445

¶2<hus, keepin) in vie( the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this 5ourt is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to e8ercise jurisdiction vested u@s $2/ 5r.P.5. to *uash the +," as :3

(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.

(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature.

(iii) The parties have compromised.

(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.

(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.

¶15onse*uent!y, the petition is a!!o(ed.  +," #o.--&- dated -..-&./-// under Sections 0/0, $-., $123A, 4-. of ,P5, re)istered at Po!ice Station, Mahesh #a)ar, and a!! conse*uentia! proceedin)s arisin) therefrom on the 6asis of compromise dated /&.&&./-/0 7Anne8ure P3/9, are, here6y, *uashed *ua the petitioners. (.UMEET GOE2) JUDGE March  -., /-/$ jatin Ahether speakin)@reasoned: Bes@#o Ahether reporta6!e: Bes@#o