Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdeep Singh @ Gola @ Jaggu & Anr vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 August, 2018
Author: Ramendra Jain
Bench: Ramendra Jain
-1-
CRM-M-14521 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14521 of 2018
Date of Decision: 06.08.2018
Jagdeep Singh @ Gola @ Jaggu and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: - Mr. Jaspreet Saini, Advocate,
for Ms. Navneet Kaur Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Karambir Singh, AAG, Punjab.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been made for quashing FIR No.41 dated 06.02.2014 registered under Sections 324, 323, 34 IPC, later on Section 326 IPC at Police Station Kotwali (P.S. City), Faridkot, District Faridkot, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3).
Pursuant to order dated 06.04.2018 of this Court, the parties appeared before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot, on 24.04.2018 to get their statements recorded. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot, has submitted her report vide letter bearing No.210 dated 24.04.2018 duly forwarded by learned District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide letter No.1369/EB dated 26.04.2018.
According to the report, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot, is satisfied that compromise effected between the parties is 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 23:10:42 ::: -2- CRM-M-14521 of 2018 genuine and valid. No person involved in this case/dispute has been declared as proclaimed offender.
The petitioners were held guilty by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2018. Vide order of sentence of even date, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under: -
Name of Offence u/s Sentence accused/convict Jagdeep Singh @ Gola 326 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for fifteen days. 323 IPC read with To undergo rigorous Section 34 IPC imprisonment for six months Hardev Singh @ Chatra 326 IPC read with To undergo rigorous Section 34 IPC imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for fifteen days. 323 IPC read with To undergo rigorous Section 34 IPC imprisonment for six months
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeal against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is still pending adjudication. During the pendency of the said appeal, the parties have amicably compromised the matter.
The question is as to whether compounding of offence can be permitted even in non compoundable offence at the appellate stage after 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 23:10:42 ::: -3- CRM-M-14521 of 2018 conviction of an accused on the basis of compromise. The relevant portion of the judgment by a Division Bench of this Court in Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 102 is reproduced as under:-
"(11) The extent and sweep of inherent power exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise between the offender and the victim of crime in a case which is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, has since been considered in extenso and answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 4 RCR (Crl.) 543, laying down that the compounding of offence and quashing of criminal proceedings are two separate things and not interchangeable and that the two powers are distinct and different although ultimate consequence may be the same. It has been authoritatively ruled that where the offender and victim have settled their dispute, the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, is competent to quash criminal proceedings even relating to the non-compoundable offences though such a power need to be invoked sparingly and not when the offences are heinous, serious, of mental depravity or like murder, rape, dacoity etc. The pronouncement thus says:-
"53. 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 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
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 23:10:42 ::: -4- CRM-M-14521 of 2018 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.
(12) The decision in Gian Singh's case (supra) also approves the view taken by a five-Judge Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052.
(13) It is indeed now unarguable to say that the power exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for the quashing of criminal prosecution is limited or affected by the provision of Section 320 CrPC.
(15) The refusal to invoke power under Section 320 CrPC, however, does not debar the High Court from resorting to its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC and pass an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of justice.
(17) The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice, however, is wide enough to include its power to quash the proceedings in relation to not only the non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 CrPC but such a power, in our considered view, is exercisable at any stage save that there is no express bar and invoking of such power is fully justified on facts and circumstances of the case."
Considering the aforesaid dictum in Sube Singh's case (supra) and the fact that there is no statutory embargo against invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after conviction of accused by the trial Court and during pendency of the appeal against such conviction and further that the compromise will bring peace and harmony in relations between the parties, FIR No.41 dated 06.02.2014 registered under Sections 324, 323, 34 IPC, 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 23:10:42 ::: -5- CRM-M-14521 of 2018 later on Section 326 IPC at Police Station Kotwali (P.S. City), Faridkot, District Faridkot, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed, subject to payment of costs of `10,000/-, out of which `6,000/- shall be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority and `4,000/- with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
List on 31.8.2018 for production of receipt with regard to deposit of aforesaid costs.
(RAMENDRA JAIN)
August 06, 2018 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 23:10:42 :::