9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first time, the police had given him a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. on 3.5.2017. However, the petitioner did not appear before the prosecuting agency, which led to issuance of arrest warrant of the present petitioner. Since the warrants of arrest cannot be executed as such, the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated - the object of coercive measures which was enforced against the petitioner stands duly achieved. The Trial Court had even granted regular bail to the petitioner for the offence under Section 174-A of the IPC. This Court feels that since the main FIR has already been compromised between the parties and is not going to proceed further, therefore, it would not be justified to make the petitioner to face trial only for an offence under Section 174-A of the IPC. Therefore, even the FIR No.138 dated 09.04.2018, which pertains to offence under Section 174-A of the IPC deserves to be quashed. Petition allowed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Singh, AAG, Haryana Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (ORAL) This pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to resolve the conflict between two sides by putting it to rest. Therefore, even the criminal law is required to give due regard to the wishes of the parties to dispute. Recognizing this principle only, the Indian legal System also provides for recognizing the compromise between two sides of a criminal dispute. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is an express provision in this regard. This section not only provides for compounding during the trial, but permits compounding even at appellate or revisional stage. However by its very nature and scope, Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole repository; wherein the recognition to a compromise between the parties have; necessarily; to be confined. This section relates only to the offences prescribed under the Indian Penal Code. There are a lot more offences prescribed outside IPC. Even to the offences existing in the IPC new dimensions are added from time to time, making the existing offences to be lighter or stringent and even new modalities of proof of offences are being recognised in view of technological advancement. This necessitates and requires the need for looking beyond Section 320 Cr.P.C. to recognise the compromise between the parties to di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompounding the offences under Section 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 quashi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA ANOTHER (P H) CRM No.43210 of 2014 decided on September 14, 2015 ; CRM-M-32493-2017 decided on 06.11.2017 and that of Delhi High Court in NOOR SALIM RANA ORS VS. STATE (GOVT) OF NCT OF DELHI) ANR CRL.M.C. 1695/2015 DECIDED ON JANUARY 22, 2016 to contend that once the main FIR is compromised between the parties, then the FIR registered under Section 174-A of the IPC can also be compromised and continuation of the same would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that ; otherwise also the petitioner was wrongly declared as proclaimed offender and thereafter the petitioner had appeared before the Court. The petitioner had approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram and that Court had granted him interim bail with a direction to appear before the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, he joined the proceedings and was ultimately granted bail by the trial Court. Therefore, it is submitted that even the FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC has even been rendered in-effective in law. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has cited three judgments titled as Gurpreet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case, as is borne out from the record, the main FIR under Section 420 of the IPC was registered on 11.6.2016. For the first time, the police had given him a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. on 3.5.2017. However, the petitioner did not appear before the prosecuting agency, which led to issuance of arrest warrant of the present petitioner. Since the warrants of arrest cannot be executed as such, the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated. Under those proceedings, as seen from the record, the proclamation notice was served on 24.01.2018. On his default in appearance, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person on 26.02.2018. However, immediately thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram for protecting him against the arrest. That Court granted interim protection to the petitioner vide order dated 13.03.2018. After getting the protection from the Court, the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer, joined the investigation and thereafter the interim protection granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was confirmed vide order dated 10.04.2018. However, before that on 09.04.2018 when the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
