Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 24 November, 2022
CRM-M-13278-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
224 CRM-M-13278-2021
Date of Decision : 24.11.2022
Balwinder Singh and another ......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Ms.Aanchal Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate
for respondent no.2
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of FIR No.107 dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 324, 34 IPC (later on offence under Section 326 has been added and Section 324 IPC has been removed vide G.D. No.28 dated 20.10.2020), Police Station Sadar Kotkapura, District Faridkot and all consequential proceeding arising thereafter on the basis of compromise dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure P-2).
In terms of order dated 07.11.2022, learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, has submitted his report dated 18.11.2022.
The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-
"i) Regarding genuineness and voluntary nature of compromise:
Through their respective statements, the petitioners 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2022 00:16:23 ::: CRM-M-13278-2021 -2- (accused) as well as respondent No.2 stated in unison that they had entered into a compromise without any extraneous influence, coercion and on their own volition. Respondent No.2 stated in specific terms that he had no objection if the quashing proceedings filed by the petitioners is accepted. Both the parties were identified by their respective advocates. In context to the availability of the original compromise, as referred in the order dated 07-11-2022, it was clarified by counsel for the petitioners/accused through separate statement that the original compromise deed/writing had been placed upon record in the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Therefore, from the statements of the parties, it is concluded that the compromise so effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.
ii) Whether all the accused are appearing before the Court or are on bail;
Both the accused are presently on bail and are appearing before the Court.
iii) Whether any other proceeding is pending against the accused/petitioner;
In the composite statement of the petitioners, it surfaced that another FIR bearing No.81 dated 07-06-2021 under Sections 341, 324, 323, 506, 148 read with Section 149 of IPC, Police Station Sadar Kotkapura is pending against petitioner No.1 Balwinder Singh whereas no criminal proceedings were stated to be pending against petitioner No.2 Kala Singh.
iv) Whether any accused has been declared proclaimed offender;
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2022 00:16:24 ::: CRM-M-13278-2021 -3- It was stated by the investigating officer as well as by the petitioners in their respective statements that none of the accused had been declared a proclaimed offender. Even in that case at hand, none of the accused had been declared a proclaimed offender during the course of the trial."
Learned State counsel would submit that he has no objection if the present FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.
Relying upon its earlier judgments in 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 10 SCC 303' and 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688', a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC online SC 834' while dealing with power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the disputing parties has held:
"11. True it is that offences which are 'non- compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a
3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2022 00:16:24 ::: CRM-M-13278-2021 -4- case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.
12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non- compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.
13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra- ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2022 00:16:24 ::: CRM-M-13278-2021 -5- line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.3 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a 'settlement' through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided." From the perusal of the enclosed FIR, report of the Trial Court and compromise arrived between the parties, it transpires that contesting parties have amicably resolved their issue, thus, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. The alleged offences are of pre-
dominantly private in nature and no moral turpitude or interest of public at large is involved. There appears to be no chance of conviction, the continuance of the proceedings would just waste valuable judicial time and it is well-known fact that courts are already over burdened.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the present petition 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2022 00:16:24 ::: CRM-M-13278-2021 -6- deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed. FIR No.107 dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 324, 34 IPC (later on offence under Section 326 has been added and Section 324 IPC has been removed vide G.D. No.28 dated 20.10.2020), Police Station Sadar Kotkapura, District Faridkot and all consequential proceeding arising thereafter on the basis of compromise dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure P-2) are quashed qua the petitioner(s).
24.11.2022 ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
anju JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2022 00:16:24 :::