KARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Karma has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of Complaint No.376/1 of 2005 dated 16.7.2005 filed under Sections 323, 324, 325, 452, 506, 148 and 149 IPC (Annexure -P.1) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 23.9.2013 (Annexure -P.4).

(2.) THE complaint has been filed by complainant -Maya Rani on the allegations that her husband asked the petitioner to settle the account for the selling of blankets with Karma -petitioner. The petitioner along with his wife Hazari, his relatives Jani and Gulab in furtherance of their common object entered the house of the complainant and raised alarm to teach a lesson to her husband for demanding money of the business. On hearing this, the complainant ran towards her husband Subhash and came in front of him. Karma gave a fist blow on her mouth and her one teeth was broken. Thereafter, other accused gave fist blows to her husband and Hazari dragged her with hair. The petitioner stands convicted by the trial Court vide judgment/order dated 3.4.2012 and the appeal preferred by him is pending before the Sessions Court at Panipat. Hazari and Jani alias Ramjani were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the parties have now entered into a compromise. He placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Barsaul v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008 2 RCR(Cri) 910to contend that this Court in exercise of its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can intervene and bring to end the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise at any stage. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned lower Appellate Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Sessions Judge, Panipat has sent her report dated 1.3.2014 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one. Joint statement of complainant Maya Rani and her husband Subhash (the only two injured in the case) was recorded on 21.2.2014, wherein they stated that they and the appellant are residents of same locality and had been doing business in partnership. They further stated that with the intervention of relatives and other respectables of the locality, they have compromised the matter with the appellant (petitioner).