TANUJ KAUSHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 582 dated 18.12.2019 registered under Sections 34 , 427 , 435 , 506 IPC at Police Station 5, Panchkula, District Panchkula (Annexure P-1) as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 21.12.2019. On 9.1.2020, while issuing notice of motion, following order was passed by this Court:-

(2.) In pursuance of the aforesaid order, both the parties have appeared before the trial Court. After recording statements of the parties, the trial Court has submitted its report dated 21.1.2020 to the effect that both the parties have amicably settled their differences and the compromise has been effected out of their free will. As per the report, the parties have validly compromised the dispute without there being any undue influence or pressure. The Court has also verified that there are only two accused persons in the FIR. Even learned counsel for the complainant- respondent No.2 states that there are only two accused persons in this case and the reference of two un-known persons in the FIR is unfounded and the complainant does not wish to take any action against any one on account of this compromise. Reference in respect of involvement of accused Manil Mongia in two FIRs and involvement of accused Tanuj Kaushal in one FIR is not relatable to the present case, which has been compromised between the parties.

(3.) This Court is of the opinion that in view of compromise between the parties, chances of conviction of the accused are remote and there is minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward to depose in support of prosecution version. In view of remote chances of conviction, it would be appropriate to exercise discretionary power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the controversy for all times to come. The compromise would facilitate both the parties to live in peace and to maintain public tranquility and offence in question is personal in nature and does not involve any heinous and serious offence of any mental depravity, nor it involves any offence covered under Prevention of Corruption Act . Therefore, when possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, continuation of criminal proceedings would put the accused to oppression and prejudice. In such a situation the exercise of power to quash the proceedings would be in consonance with the provisions of aw to meet ends of justice and to prevent unnecessary continuation of proceedings which may ultimately result in some unnecessary vagaries of criminal trial.