Dharampal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 17064 P&H
Judgement Date : 16 December, 2022

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharampal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 16 December, 2022
CRM-M-40589-2022                                                      -1-

249    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M-40589-2022
                                        Date of Decision:16.12.2022

DHARAMPAL AND OTHERS                                      ......... Petitioners

                                    Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER                              ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :    Mr. Naveen Siwatch, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Naveen Singh, DAG, Haryana.

             Mr. J. S. Sanela, Advocate for
             Mr. Sunny Namdev, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

                   ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 0691, dated 20.12.2015, (Annexure P-1) under Sections 120-B, 386, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Rohtak City, District Rohtak, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/ affidavit dated 10.08.2022 (Annexure P-2).

In terms of order dated 06.09.2022 of this Court, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana has submitted his report dated 09.10.2022. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-

"After perusal of statement of the complainant, accused as well as Investigating Officer HC Sandeep this court is of the considered view that:-
1. Seven persons namely Dharampal, Satbir, Hari Parkash @ Kundu, Surender, Narender, Ranjit Singh and Kenan Photographer were arrayed as an accused 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2022 09:09:22 ::: CRM-M-40589-2022 -2- in the present FIR. However, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed against four accused persons namely Dharampal, Hari Parkash @ Kundu, Surender and Narender and three accused namely Satbir, Ranjit Singh and Kenan Photographer were found to be innocent by the police and were kept in column no. 12 (sics) of the challan.
2. All the accused namely Dharampal, Hari Parkash @ Kundu, Surender and Narender against whom challan was filed in the court and complainant are party to the compromise.
3. None of the accused has been declared as proclaimed offendor nor any such proceedings have been initiated against any of the accused facing the trial as per statement of Investigating officer.
4. The present case is at the stage of evidence of prosecution.
5. The compromise arrived at between the complainant and accused is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence."

Statement of Investigating Officer was recorded by Trial Court and said statement is part of report dated 09.10.2022 submitted by learned Trial Court.

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 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2022 09:09:22 ::: CRM-M-40589-2022 -3- 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 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 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2022 09:09:22 ::: CRM-M-40589-2022 -4- 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 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, 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2022 09:09:22 ::: CRM-M-40589-2022 -5- 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 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. 0691, dated 20.12.2015, (Annexure P-1) under Sections 120-B, 386, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Rohtak City, District Rohtak, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).

                                               ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                      JUDGE
16.12.2022
Ali


                   Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No
                      Whether Reportable        Yes/No




                                5 of 5
             ::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2022 09:09:22 :::