Rohtas and Others vs State of Haryana

Rekha Mittal, J.—Through the present petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 358 dated 19.12.2008 for offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 427, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Rohtak and proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 20.05.2013 (Annexure P2), arrived at between the parties. In the instant case, the FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Biro wife of Shri Lok Ram.

Complainant-Biro is present in Court along with her counsel. She has filed her duly sworn affidavit deposing that the aforesaid FIR was got registered by her and now with the intervention of the respectables, she has compromised the matter and has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the parties have amicably settled their differences by way of compromise, no useful purpose would be served with the continuation of the criminal proceedings.

Counsel for the State of Haryana has not disputed the correctness of the contention of the petitioners that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Indisputably, the parties voluntarily, without any coercion, misrepresentation and undue influence, have entered into a compromise and the complainant has decided not to proceed with the matter any further in the interest of their peaceful living and harmony.

The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, has held as reproduced below:-

The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, has held as quoted here in under:-

We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.

In a latest judgment in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, after a detailed discussion and scanning the various judgments rendered in different cases referred in the judgment, has summarized its conclusions in para 57, which is reproduced herein below:-

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 predominatingly 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 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.

A perusal of the allegations of the FIR in the instant case reveals that the present case squarely falls in that category of cases which can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Keeping in view the authoritative enunciation of law laid down in the aforementioned judgments and in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and it is expedient in the interest of ends of justice that criminal case is put to an end. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 358 dated 19.12.2008 for offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 427, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Rohtak and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.