Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bal Krishan Alias Bali Rohit vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 14 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
296
CRM-M-54848-2024
Decided on : 14.01.2025
Bal Krishan alias Bali Rohit
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate for
Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Jasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Shalender Rana, Advocate,
Mr. Seetal Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Joginder Pundir, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, has been
filed by the petitioner, for quashing of FIR No. 758, dated 29.12.2023
(Annexure P-1), for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504,
506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Jagadhri City, District Yamuna
Nagar, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis
of compromise-deed dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P-2).
2. Vide order dated 06.11.2024, the affected parties were directed
to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their
respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate was to submit a report in this regard giving certain
details as enumerated in the said order.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 06.11.2024, passed by this Court,
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 06:54:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006262
CRM-M-54848-2024 -2-
the parties have appeared before learned Civil Judge (SD)-cum-ACJM,
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, and as per report dated 07.12.2024, submitted to
this Court, both the parties have got recorded their respective statements in
Court. The operative part of the report received from learned Court below is
as under:-
” It is submitted that in case FIR No. 758 of 2023 under
Section 323, 506, 504 and 452 of IPC, Police Station City
Jagadhri, complainant party consist of complainant, Shalu Sharma
and her father, Jagdish Sharma.
There is one accused Bal Krishan @ Bali s/o Ramesh
Kumar, resident of H.No.2240, Rajesh Colony, Tehsil Jagadhri.
As per the statement of the investigating officer accused
Bal Krishan @ Bali was not a proclaimed offender. However,
following FIRs were registered against him:-
i) FIR No.231 dated 28.04.2011, under Section 379 and
411 of IPC, Police Station City Jagadhri.
ii) FIR No.375 dated 25.09.2012, under Section 356 and
379 of IPC, Police Station City Jagadhri.
iii) FIR No.85 dated 27.02.2012, under Section 356 and
379 of IPC, Police Station City Yamuna Nagar.
iv) FIR No.184 dated 10.05.2012, under Section 356 and
379 of IPC, Police Station City Yamuna Nagar.
v) FIR No.570 dated 30.10.2012, under Section 356 and
379 of IPC, Police Station City Yamuna Nagar.
vi) FIR No.615 dated 19.11.2012, under Section 356 and
379 of IPC, Police Station City Yamuna Nagar.
Accused was acquitted in above cases; but he was convicted
in FIR No.584 dated 31.12.2012, under Section 395 and 397 of
IPC, Police Station City Jagadhri.
Perusal of the statements of complainant Shalu Sharma and
her father Jagdish Sharma reveal that they have amicably settled
the matter with the accused Bal Krishan @ Bali without any
pressure or coercion as per copy of compromise Mark A. The
compromise seems to be genuine and voluntarily. Statement of the
parties and IO are being sent with the report for kind perusal.
Submitted please.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that due to intervention
of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the matter has been
resolved and private parties have effected a compromise-deed dated
11.10.2024 (Annexure P-2). At present, there remains no dispute amongst the
private parties. He further submits that in view of the compromise so effected
between the private parties, pendency of the impugned FIR and
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 06:54:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006262
CRM-M-54848-2024 -3-
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the
process of law.
5. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for respondent
No.2, after going through the statements and the report received from learned
Court below, very fairly admit that the private parties have resolved their
dispute and effected a compromise and that they have no objection if the
impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings are quashed on the basis
of the compromise.
6. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Kulwinder Singh
and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052,
has observed as under:
“(28) To conclude, it can safely be said that there can
never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to
enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one
which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., “to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “to secure the
ends of justice”.
(29) In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya
Sawhney and others, Hon’ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned
up the essence of compromise in the following words:
“The finest hour of justice arrives
propitiously when parties, despite falling apart,
bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of
reunion.”
(30) The power to do complete justice is the very
essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot
be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to
anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the
standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such
plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while
donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice.
(31) No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of
the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the
power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
(32) The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 06:54:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006262
CRM-M-54848-2024 -4-
qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of
justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used
to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the
social amity and reduces 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 by
exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the
event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is
limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule 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.
(33) 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 Section
482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases
alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the
proceedings even in non-compoundable 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.
(34) The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of
Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined
para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its
inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it
sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of
power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is
a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain
and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount
importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting
congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a
compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should
attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which
should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such
compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or
would promote savagery.”
7. The legal principles as laid down for quashing of the criminal
proceedings were also approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh
v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303. Furthermore, the broad
principles for exercising the powers under Section 482 were summarized by
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 06:54:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006262
CRM-M-54848-2024 -5-
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641.
8. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Ramgopal and
another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834, that matters
which can be categorized as personal in nature or where nature of injuries do
not exhibit mental depravity or involves commission of an offence of such a
serious nature that quashing of FIR would override the public interest, the
Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the
parties. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is extracted as under:-
“19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to
Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the
compromise between the parties in respect of offences
‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extra-
ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers
of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context
of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature
and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii)
Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of
compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv)
Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations.”
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the material available on record, this Court finds that there appears to be
substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that
pendency of the present criminal litigation would be abuse of process of law
since the chances of conviction of the petitioner are bleak in view of the
compromise so effected between the private parties.
10. The report alongwith statements of the affected parties received
from learned Court below reveal that the aggrieved person has genuinely
effected a compromise with the petitioner and she has no objection if the
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 06:54:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006262
CRM-M-54848-2024 -6-
impugned FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.
11. Keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case and taking into consideration the ratio of the judgments in the cases of
Gian Singh (supra), Ramgopal (supra) and Kulwinder Singh (supra), this
petition is accepted and FIR No. 758, dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure P-1), for
the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 of IPC, registered
at Police Station Jagadhri City, District Yamuna Nagar, and all the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the
petitioner, in view of compromise-deed dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P-2).
12. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
January 14, 2025
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 18-01-2025 06:54:57 :::