[CASE NUMBER] 1 265 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH [CASE NUMBER] Date of Decision: 19.01.2018 ARUN AND ORS Petitioners Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present:Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. [ENTITY], D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for respondent No.2. [ENTITY], J. (Oral)
[1]. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.235 dated 26.06.2017 registered under [SECTION] [ACT] at Police Station Murthal, District Sonepat (Annexure P-1) as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
[2]. Vide order dated 16.08.2017, both the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their respective statements in respect of genuineness of the compromise in question.
1 of 3 [3]. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, both the parties have already appeared on 18.09.2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat and have deposed in respect of genuineness and voluntary nature of the compromise in question. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat has also endorsed the genuineness of the compromise vide its report dated 13.10.2017.
[4]. 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] [ACT] 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 [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 2 of 3 provisions of law to meet ends of justice and to prevent unnecessary continuation of proceedings which may ultimately result in some unnecessary vagaries of criminal trial. [5]. Learned State counsel, however, objects to the aforesaid course, but in order to prevent unnecessary continuation of criminal proceedings on the ground that there are bleak chances of conviction in the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in fitness of things to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise. The compromise in question is fully in consonance with the guidelines framed in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
[6]. Resultantly, FIR No.235 dated 26.06.2017 registered under [SECTION] [ACT] at Police Station Murthal, District Sonepat (Annexure P-1) as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
[7]. Petition stands disposed of. January 19, 2018 ([ENTITY]) [ENTITY] JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 3 of 3