Punjab-Haryana High Court
Binder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 December, 2022
CRM-M-36493-2022 -1-
238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-36493-2022
Date of Decision:02.12.2022
BINDER SINGH AND ORS ......... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Varun Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., seeking setting aside of judgment and order dated 28.03.2022
passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot (Annexure P-2) on the
basis of compromise dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure P-3).
In terms of order dated 18.08.2022 of this Court, learned
Sessions Judge, Faridkot has submitted her report dated 29.08.2022 The
relevant extracts of the report are as below :-
"From the aforesaid statements of the parties and
Investigating officer, recorded in the court on
23.08.2022, the report is submitted as under:-
1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in the
FIR.
(1) Binder Singh son of Gurdass Singh;
(2) Jagmeet Singh alias Bablu son of Binder Singh;
(3) Jagdish Singh alias Sonu son of Binder Singh;
1 of 7
(4) Satnam Singh alias Jassi son of Sukhchain Singh;
(5) Sukhchain Singh son of Gurdass Singh;
all residents of village Burj Hari Ka, District
Faridkot.
2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender.
None.
3. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary
and without any coercion or undue influence.
As per the statement of complainant Jagsir Singh @
Gurbhej Singh, injured Gurpreet Singh @ Gori and
joint statement of accused Binder Singh, Jagmeet
Singh alias Bablu, Jagdish Singh alias Sonu, Satnam
Singh alias Jassi and Sukhchain Singh, counter-
signed by their learned respective counsels,
compromise Ex.DX arrived at between the parties, the
compromise aPpears to be genuine, voluntarily and
without any pressure or undue influence.
4 Whether accused persons are involved in any
other case or not
(a) Accused Satnam Singh @ Jassi son of
Sukhkchain Singh son of Gurdass Singh, resident of
village Burj Hari Ka, District Faridkot, is accused in
an other case bearing FIR No.08 dated 12.1.2019,
under Section 509 IPC, Police station Hindu Mall
Kot, Ganganagar.
(b) Accused namely Binder Singh, Jagmeet Singh
alias Bablu, Jagdish Singh alias Sonu and Sukhchain
Singh are not involved in any other criminal case.
5. Current stage of the case.
Arguments on merits of the appeal against
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
28.3.2022, passed in case FIR No.71 dated 9.7.2017,
Police Station Bajakhana, CIS No.CHI/432/2018,
CNR No.PBFDO3-002503-2018, vide which accused
2 of 7
were convicted and sentenced for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 148 IPC and
325,324,341,506 TPC read with Section 149 IPC."
Statement of Investigation Officer was recorded by
Appellate Court and said statement is part of report dated 29.08.2022
submitted by learned Appellate Court.
The petitioners have preferred appeal against impugned
judgment and order dated 28.03.2022 and it is pending before Appellate
Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of recent
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ramgopal and another Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC online SC 834' and a Division
Bench of this Court in Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana
and another, 2014 (2) Crimes 299, High Court can quash judgment of
conviction on the basis of compromise, if appeal is pending.
Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating
Officer submitted that State has no objection if judgment and order of
conviction, 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
3 of 7
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 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
4 of 7
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,
cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups
only, for such offences have the potential to impact the
society at large. Effacing abominable offences
5 of 7
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, compromise arrived
between the parties and report of the Court below, 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. 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 judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court cited by
learned counsel for the petitioners, judgment of conviction can be set
aside, if appeal is pending before Appellate Court. Parties are ad-idem
that appeal against impugned judgment is pending before Appellate
Court.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the present
petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 28.03.2022 (Annexure P-2) is set aside.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
02.12.2022
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 7
7 of 7
