Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 December, 2022
CRM-M-5260-2021 -1-
234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5260-2021
Date of Decision:05.12.2022
SUKHCHAIN SINGH ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.
Ms. Sumitra, Advocate for
Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 512, dated 27.08.2011, under Sections 506 and 34 of IPC 1860, registered at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal (Annexure P-
1) and order dated 26.07.2012 (Annexure P-2), and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/ affidavit dated 12.01.2021 (Annexure P-4).
In terms of order dated 18.05.2022 of this Court, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Assandh has submitted his report dated 26.08.2022. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-
" Besides recording the statements of the parties as mentioned above, I also duly enquired about the compromise between two sides independently from the complainant and the accused as well as their 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2022 06:47:50 ::: CRM-M-5260-2021 -2- respective counsel. Both the accused representing the parties have stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties and there is no ill will between the two sides. So, after perusal of the statements of the parties and after enquiring from the parties independently, as well as their counsel, I am of the opinion that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine, bonafide, without any pressure and voluntary between the parties. Both the parties requested that the present FIR no.512 dated
27.08.2011, under Sections 506 and 34 of IPC P.S. Assandh be quashed.
The compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine, bonafide, without any pressure and voluntary between the parties.
Further, as per the order of Hon'ble High Court, Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate has to intimate whether any P.O. proceedings are pending against any of the party on or before the date fixed. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the applicant/accused namely Sukhchain Singh son of Sh. Mahender Singh was declared proclaimed person in the present case bearing FIR No.512 dated 27.08.2011 and FIR u/s 174-A IPC has not been registered yet. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that proceedings qua attachment of property of accused Sukhchain Singh son of Sh. Mahender Singh u/s 83 Cr.P.C. were pending before the court of Ld. SDJM, Assandh and the same has been consigned to the record room. "
Statement of Investigation Officer was recorded by Trial Court and said statement is part of report dated 26.08.2022 submitted by learned Trial Court.
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2022 06:47:50 ::: CRM-M-5260-2021 -3- Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating Officer submitted that State has no objection if FIR and consequent proceedings in view of compromise 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 case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2022 06:47:50 ::: CRM-M-5260-2021 -4- 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 line constricting the power of the 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2022 06:47:50 ::: CRM-M-5260-2021 -5- 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 between 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 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2022 06:47:50 ::: CRM-M-5260-2021 -6- 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 deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed.
FIR No. 512, dated 27.08.2011, under Sections 506 and 34 of IPC 1860, registered at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal (Annexure P-1) and order dated 26.07.2012 (Annexure P-2), and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
05.12.2022
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2022 06:47:50 :::