Bhupender Singh vs State of Haryana and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and

emanating from the record, are that, initially, in the wake of complaint of complainant Maneesh Chhabra son of O.P. Chhabra respondent No. 2

(for brevity ""the complainant""), a criminal case was registered against petitioner-accused Bhupender Singh, vide FIR No. 554 dated 22.11.2011

(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, by the police of Police Station

Faridabad Central. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) in the trial Court against the

petitioner-accused to face the trial of indicated offences.

During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of compromise

dated 28.7.2012 (Annexure P-2) and affidavit (Annexure P3) of complainant.

Having compromised the matter, now the petitioner-accused has preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and

all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter-alia, pleading that with the intervention of

respectables of society, the parties have amicably settled their dispute, vide compromise (Annexure P2). They want to live in peace in future. The

complainant does not want to pursue the case. He has no objection if the criminal case registered against the petitioner-accused, by virtue of FIR

(Annexure P-1) is quashed. The parties have redressed their grievances. The compromise is stated to be in their welfare and benefit. On the

strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings

arising thereto in the manner depicted here-in-above.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the

genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise (Annexure P-2) between them, by this court, by way of order dated 6.11.2012.

In compliance thereof, having recorded the statements of all the concerned parties, the trial Court concluded that the compromise (Annexure

P2) effected between them is voluntarily, genuine and without any fraud, undue influence or inducement, vide report, bearing No. 2348 dated

21.11.2012.

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, vide compromise (Annexure P-2) and the

pointed report of the trial Court.

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of amicable settlement

between the parties is no more res integra and is now well-settled.

An identical question (recently) came to be decided by the Hon''ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 8989 of 2010, titled as Gian Singh Versus

State of Punjab and another, decided on September 24, 2012. Having interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgments

on the indicated points, it was ruled (para 57) as under:-

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 u/s 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. 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 personnel

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 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.

Above being the legal position and the material on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination

in this petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?

Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served,

if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of

disputes between the parties, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

As is evident from the record that, with the intervention of respectables of society, the parties have amicably settled their dispute, vide

compromise (Annexure P2). They want to live in peace in future. The complainant does not want to pursue the case. He has no objection if the

criminal case registered against the petitioner-accused, by means of FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The parties have redressed their grievances.

The compromise is stated to be in their welfare and benefit. The factum and genuineness of the compromise between them is also reiterated by the

trial Court in its indicated report. Thus, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties, so, there is no

impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and

to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Therefore, to me, the ratio of the law laid down and the bench-mark set out by the Hon''ble

Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s case(supra), ""mutatis mutandis"" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the

problem in hand. Sequelly, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in

the obtaining circumstances of the case. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.

554 dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto, are hereby quashed. The petitioner-accused is

accordingly discharged from the pointed criminal case registered against him.