Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Ram & Others vs State Of Punjab & Another on 12 November, 2008
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Criminal Misc.-M No.420 of 2005 :1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: November 12, 2008
Joginder Ram & others
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab & another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Mehar Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab,
for the State.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners stand convicted for offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. The petitioners accordingly impugned their conviction and sentence awarded to them by filing appeal before Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioners and the complainant have compromised and a deed prepared in this regard is annexed as Annexure P-4. The Criminal Misc.-M No.420 of 2005 :2 : offence under Section 323 IPC is compoundable, but the offence under Section 498-A IPC is non-compoundable. The petitioners have now invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of this FIR on the basis of this compromise.
The reason for filing this petition is that offence under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable, the Appellate Court cannot acquit them on the basis of this compromise. It is to be seen in this background if the quashing of the FIR can be ordered in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of a compromise, when appeal against conviction is pending before the first Appellate Court. This issue in regard to exercise of jurisdiction for quashing of FIR, when appeal is pending before the lower Appellate Court came up for consideration before this Court and is a subject matter of adjudication in an order passed in Criminal Misc.No.21880-M of 2008.
The conviction of the petitioners is for an offences alleged on account of matrimonial dispute/differences in the family. Efforts in such cases normally are to settle the disputes and differences. Wise counsel appears to have dawned on the parties, though belatedly. Since the couple wants to have their independent course in life, they should be allowed to get out of their commitments due to this matrimonial alliance so that their sufferings come to an end. Courts have always made efforts to make the warring couples reconcile and where they still do not see reasons, then to see if they can amicably part with each other.
It is averred in the petition that such like petition for compounding of the offences could not be filed before the lower Criminal Misc.-M No.420 of 2005 :3 : Appellate Court as the offence under Section 498-A IPC, for which the petitioners have been convicted, is non-compoundable under the Scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. In Criminal Misc. 21880-M of 2008, this court considered the issue whether quashing petition can be maintained before this court when appeal against the conviction for offences is pending before the first Appellate Court. It is held as under:-
What should be the approach? The appeal against the conviction of petitioner No.1 and against acquittal of petitioners No.2 to 5 are pending before the first appellate Court. Would it be legally permissible to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings? It may lead to a some unhealthy precedent being set which would also not sound legally in order. So far, the petitioners have made only an oral prayer before the first appellate Court, which has been orally declined. Generally, before approaching this Court for relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. an approach to the Court before which the proceedings are pending with a prayer for dismissal of the proceedings should ordinarily constitute a condition precedent for entertaining an application under this Section because the grievance in regard to abuse of process must ordinarily be made before the Court where the abuse is taking place. I am accordingly of the view that the petitioners must, at the first instance, file an application before the first Appellate Court for bringing on record the compromise reached between the parties, Criminal Misc.-M No.420 of 2005 :4 : emphasizing the fact that husband and wife are now living together. The Appellate Court has ample power to permit additional evidence at the appellate stage in exercise of powers under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and the Court would be well advised to exercise such power to take these facts and compromise on record........"
Following the same precedent, the petitioners herein are also directed to make a move before the first Appellate Court to bring on record this compromise and the factual position as noticed by way of additional evidence. The Appellate Court ofcourse would be well advised to take the same into consideration and pass any appropriate order in accordance with law. In case any adverse order is made against the petitioners, they would be at liberty to approach this court by way of revision etc. and this court would then be in a position to deal with the case by taking this compromise into consideration. Even the first Appellate Court by taking this compromise into consideration would be in a position to grant any reliefs as considered appropriate. The first Appellate Court would also be in a position to decide, if the petitioners need to be sentenced in this case once they have compromised with the complainant. The provisions regarding release on probation would also be available for consideration. Ofcourse, the petitioners would have legal right to approach this court if any adverse order is still made against them. In that event, the Appellate Court can adequately protect them to enable them to approach this court. Precedent, if any, can be seen from the ratio of law laid down in Ramchandra Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, Criminal Misc.-M No.420 of 2005 :5 : (2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 234. This was a case where the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. During the pendency of appeal, parties entered into compromise. On the basis of this compromise, the appellant therein was acquitted of the offence under Section 323 IPC. In this case, the complainant-wife had filed an affidavit clearly stating that she had no wish to pursue the case. She had also re-married by then. Though the conviction under Section 498-A was directed to be maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment (one year in this case) was ordered to be reduced to period already undergone. One of the appellant in this case was also released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, so as to ensure that his job may not be put to jeopardy.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a fact that both the petitioners are employees and any order of sentence if allowed to remain may affect their service. Keeping this in view, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Singh (supra) had released the appellant sentenced in the said case on probation of good conduct. It would be open for the first Appellate Court to adopt this procedure following the ration of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchandra Singh (supra).
The present petition is accordingly disposed of.
November 12 , 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE