Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1749 (PNJ)

Tahir v. State of Haryana

2012-12-04

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
Vijender Singh Malik, J.:— Tahir and three others, the petitioners have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P. C., for quashing of FIR No. 213 dated 20.6.2012 registered at Police Station Surajkund, District Faridabad (Annexure P1) for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 450, 285, 506 and 307 IPC and section 25 of Arms Act from which sections 450, 285, 307 IPC and section 25 of Arms Act were deleted alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2). Besides State counsel, respondents no. 2 and 3 represented by their counsel, Ms. Vandana Sharma, Advocate are appearing before the court. They have been identified by ASI Suresh Kumar of Police Station Surajkund, District Faridabad as complainants of this case. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have also filed their affidavits dated 4.12.2012 asserting that the matter stands compromised between the parties. The contested decisions made by the courts leave scars on the litigants who lose the battle. In a decision based on compromise, none is a loser and, therefore, none suffers any such scar. Compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute but also restores tranquility in the society. Taking restoration of peace and harmonious relations between the parties and order in the society as the prime concerns of law, it has been held by this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 that a non compoundable matrimonial offence could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. However, the said decision left a gap as it did not cover the cases other than the cases for matrimonial offences. A Larger Bench of five Hon Rs.ble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 took the following decision with regard to the other non-compoundable offences:- “29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr. P. C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in noncompoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr. P. C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in noncompoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr. P. C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. ” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though section 307 IPC has been deleted from the FIR, yet even if it is treated as available on record, the FIR deserves to be quashed in view of the decision of Hon Rs.ble Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 9. According to him, it was a case for an offence punishable under section 394 IPC and was not less serious than the case in hand. In that case, FIR was quashed on the basis of compromise. In view of the aforesaid decision of this court, the FIRs/complaints in non-compoundable offences could be quashed on the basis of compromise. It is so because after compromise between the parties, no evidence supporting the prosecution is possible to come on the record and possibility of conviction of the accused becomes bleak. However, before accepting the petition and quashing the proceedings, the court has to satisfy itself that the compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit. The compromise in hand not only satisfies the above said requirements, but also appears to be securing the ends of justice. I, therefore, find that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties without their being any pressure on anyone. Hence, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 213 dated 20.6.2012 registered at Police Station Surajkund, District Faridabad (Annexure P1) for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 450, 285, 506 and 307 IPC and section 25 of Arms Act from which sections 450, 285, 307 IPC and section 25 of Arms Act were deleted along with all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same is quashed.