Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohd. Adrish Alias Raju Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 14 November, 2014
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. Criminal Misc. No. M-22744 of 2013
Mohd. Adrish alias Raju and others ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..Respondents
2. Criminal Misc. No. M-10109 of 2014
Laxman Khan ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..Respondents
Date of decision: 14.11.2014.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest.
Present: Mr. Parvez Akhtar, Advocate
for the petitioners in both the petitions.
Mr. T.N. Sarup, Addl. AG, Punjab.
for respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate
for respondent No.2 in both the petitions.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
By this judgment, two petitions bearing Criminal Misc. No. NEETU RANI 2014.11.26 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-22744 of 2013 2 M-22744 of 2013 and Criminal Misc. No. M-10109 of 2014 shall be disposed of as both the cases have been filed for quashing of First Information Report (for short 'FIR') No.59 dated 05.06.2013, under Sections 452, 323, 427, 506, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Sandhaur, District Sangrur, on the basis of compromise effected between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the proceedings and with the intervention of the common persons, a compromise was arrived at between the parties as the aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioners due to misunderstanding.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 has no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings.
Notice of motion in both the cases was issued and thereafter, both the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording of their statements with regard to compromise and the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court was also directed to send a report along with statements of the parties.
In response to the said directions issued by this Court, a report in this regard along with the statements of the parties has been received, which is on record, wherein factum of compromise has been affirmed. It has also been mentioned that the compromise effected between the parties is voluntary and is without any pressure from NEETU RANI 2014.11.26 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-22744 of 2013 3 either side. Complainant-respondent No.2 has specifically stated in her statement that she has no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings against the petitioners.
On the last date of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court by learned State counsel that five criminal cases are pending against petitioner-Laxman Khan.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the details/status of those cases by way of filing an affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that in case FIR No.18 dated 16.03.2010, under Sections 148, 307, 359 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri as well as in case FIR No.60 dated 10.06.2007, under Sections 326, 323, 324, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Malerkotla, petitioner-Laxman Khan has been acquitted of the charges vide judgments dated 08.12.2010 and 18.12.2007. In case FIR No.66 dated 13.06.2007, under Sections 325, 341 IPC, registered at Police Station City Malerkotla, he has been discharged on 28.05.2008 and FIR No.151 dated 10.11.2009, under Sections 452, 382, 506, 323, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Malerkotla was quashed by this Court vide order dated 29.09.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. No. M-1345 of 2011. It has also been mentioned that other than aforesaid four cases, no other case is pending against the petitioner-Laxman Khan.
Learned State counsel has filed reply in the Court and the same is taken on record.
NEETU RANI 2014.11.26 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-22744 of 2013 4
The status of aforesaid FIRs have also been mentioned in the reply.
In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served in case proceedings are continued as it would amount to wastage of precious time of the Court as because of the compromise, the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution and as such continuation of proceedings would be a futile exercise.
It has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as by this Court in various judgments that this Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings if there is a compromise between the parties and the purpose is to secure the ends of justice or same is in the interest of parties. It has also been held by the Larger Bench of our own High Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others, reported as 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, that the High Court has wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences, notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 4 RCR (Criminal) 543 has laid down that compounding of offence and quashing of criminal proceedings are two separate things and are not interchangeable. It has also been NEETU RANI 2014.11.26 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-22744 of 2013 5 mentioned that two powers are distinct and different but ultimate consequence may be the same. It has also been held that where the offender and victim have settled their dispute, the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is competent to quash criminal proceedings even in case of non-compoundable offences. No doubt, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be invoked sparingly and not when the offences are heinous, serious, of mental depravity or like murder, rape, dacoity etc. The Apex Court has held as under:-
"It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided.
Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the NEETU RANI 2014.11.26 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-22744 of 2013 6 quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in NEETU RANI 2014.11.26 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-22744 of 2013 7 wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crimedoer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the NEETU RANI 2014.11.26 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-22744 of 2013 8 framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed."
The aforesaid decision in Gian Singh's case (supra) finds support with the view taken by a five-Judge Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra).
The power of this Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C. to 'compound' an offence on the basis of compromise between the parties can be invoked only if the subject offence is compoundable. Meaning thereby, power under Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not exercisable in relation to a case of non-compoundable offence as has been held in some other judgments also but the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not debar the High Court from resorting to its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to pass an appropriate order to secure ends of justice. The object of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to prevent the abuse of law and to secure ends of justice and same are wide never to include its power to quash the proceedings in relation not only to non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under NEETU RANI 2014.11.26 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-22744 of 2013 9 Section 320 Cr.P.C. But such a power can be exercised in case the same is justified on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. The genuineness of the settlement is based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is to be ascertained to the satisfaction of the Court that the compromise between the parties is genuine, willful and bonafide.
In the present case also, the parties have compromised their dispute and complainant has no objection in quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.59 dated 05.06.2013, under Sections 452, 323, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sandhaur, District Sangrur as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners in both the petitions, namely, Mohd. Adrish alias Raju, Imran, Boota Singh and Laxman Khan, are hereby quashed.
14.11.2014 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
neetu JUDGE
NEETU RANI
2014.11.26 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh