Rajesh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1138936
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-29-2014
AppellantRajesh and Others
RespondentState of Haryana and Another
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. no.m-5330 of 2014 date of decision: april 28, 2014 rajesh and others .petitioners versus state of haryana and another .respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice surinder gupta present: mr.surender deswal, advocate for the petitioners.dr. deepak jindal, dag, haryana. surinder gupta, j the petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (for short, 'cr.p.c.') seeking quashing of the fir no.222 dated 12.6.2009 (annexure p-1).registered for offence under sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 452 ipc at police station butana, karnal on the basis of the compromise (annexure p-2).as per case of the prosecution, on 11.6.2009, on the night of marriage of the brother of the complainant-respondent no.2, at about 01.00 a.m.the petitioners forcibly entered in the house of the complainant- respondent no.2 and caused injuries to the respondents no.2 to 4. upon notice, dr. deepak jindal, deputy advocate general, haryana has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.1-state. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. the parties were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded. the trial court has sent its report dated 5.4.2014 stating therein that the compromise has been effected in between the complainant and the accused which appears to be voluntary in nature and without any pressure or influence. learned state counsel has also not disputed the compromise (annexure p/2).kumar deepak 2014.05.02 10:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crl. misc. no.m-5330 of 2014 -2- the only obstacle in the way of accepting the compromise for quashing the impugned fir is that the offence under section 452 ipc is not compoundable. in case kulwinder singh versus state of punjab, 2007 (3) rcr (crl.) 1052, full bench of this court has held that the fir can be quashed on the basis of the compromise by exercising inherent powers under section 482 cr.p.c.even if the offence is not compoundable. in the instant case, the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectables and now the parties wish to live in peace and harmony. keeping all the above facts in view, i am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned fir should be quashed. keeping the case pending will not serve the ends of justice. the quashing of the fir will provide the parties opportunity to live in an amicable, peaceful and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of the parties to this petition but also for their families and ultimately the society at large. the offence in this case is not so heinous or serious that it cannot be settled by the parties through compromise. in view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned fir (annexure p-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed. april 28, 2014 (surinder gupta) deepak judge kumar deepak 2014.05.02 10:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

No.M-5330 of 2014 Date of decision: April 28, 2014 Rajesh and others .Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another .Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Surinder Gupta Present: Mr.Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Dr.

Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana.

Surinder Gupta, J The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of the FIR No.222 dated 12.6.2009 (Annexure P-1).registered for offence under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 452 IPC at Police Station Butana, Karnal on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2).As per case of the prosecution, on 11.6.2009, on the night of marriage of the brother of the complainant-respondent No.2, at about 01.00 a.m.the petitioners forcibly entered in the house of the complainant- respondent No.2 and caused injuries to the respondents No.2 to 4.

Upon notice, Dr.

Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

The parties were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded.

The trial court has sent its report dated 5.4.2014 stating therein that the compromise has been effected in between the complainant and the accused which appears to be voluntary in nature and without any pressure or influence.

Learned State counsel has also not disputed the compromise (Annexure P/2).Kumar Deepak 2014.05.02 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.

Misc.

No.M-5330 of 2014 -2- The only obstacle in the way of accepting the compromise for quashing the impugned FIR is that the offence under Section 452 IPC is not compoundable.

In case Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, Full Bench of this Court has held that the FIR can be quashed on the basis of the compromise by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.even if the offence is not compoundable.

In the instant case, the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectables and now the parties wish to live in peace and harmony.

Keeping all the above facts in view, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned FIR should be quashed.

Keeping the case pending will not serve the ends of justice.

The quashing of the FIR will provide the parties opportunity to live in an amicable, peaceful and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of the parties to this petition but also for their families and ultimately the society at large.

The offence in this case is not so heinous or serious that it cannot be settled by the parties through compromise.

In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.

April 28, 2014 (Surinder Gupta) deepak Judge Kumar Deepak 2014.05.02 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document