Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurmail Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 December, 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH
236 CRM-M-29682-2022
Date of Decision: 06.12.2022
GURMAIL SINGH AND OTHERS ...Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present: Mr. Bikramjit Singh Randhawa, Advocate, for
Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners

Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab

Mr. Sultan Singh, Gill, Advocate,
for Mr. Harmandeep Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.2
2 3 ok ok
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking

quashing of FIR No.0169 dated 12.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 379, 447, 511, 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of Compromise dated 05.07.2022 (Annexure P-2).

In terms of order dated 13.07.2022, JMIC, Ferozepur, has submitted his report dated 15.09.2022. The relevant extracts of the report as as below:-

i. As per statement of I.O, there are twelve accused arrayed in the FIR namely (1) Gurmail Singh son of Lal Singh (2) Pritam Singh son of Sahib Singh, (3)Amar Singh son of Charan Singh (4) Sarabjeet Singh son of Amar Singh (5) Onkar Singh son of Charan Singh (6) Sarabjeet Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh (7) Jaswant Singh son of Chan Singh alias Gurcharan Singh (8) Gian Singh son of Jalla Singh (9) Buta Singh alias Paramjit Singh son of Magh Singh (10) Mangal Singh son of Tehal Singh (11) Buta Singh son of Sobha Singh, all residents of village Habib Wala, Tehsil and District Ferozepur and (12)Amrik Singh son of Makhan Singh alias Bakar

Singh. All the petitioners/accused as well as complainant have made MOHIT KUMAR 2022.12.06 15:14

| attest fo the accuracy and statements qua the compromise.

authenticity of this order/judgment

ii. Out of above-said twelve accused no accused has ever been absconding or declared as proclaimed offender.

itt. There is only one complainant namely Gurdev Singh who appeared in the court and made his statement in support of the compromise.

iv. The cancellation report has been prepared in this case on 31.5.2022 which is pending before the Hon'ble SSP for approval and yet to be presented before the Area Magistrate.

v. The compromise between the parties is genuine and voluntary and has been arrived at between the parties out of their free will.

vi. One more cases i.e. FIR No.86 dated 30.4.19, u/s 324/323/34 IPC PS Sadar, Ferozepur has been registered against petitioner/accused Pritam Singh only and no case is pending against the other accused."

Learned State counsel would submit that cancellation report has been prepared and State has no objection if the present FIR and consequential

proceedings 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 Section 320 CrP.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 CrP.C, which its the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 3206 CrP.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of

'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out MOHIT KUMAR 2022.12.06 15:14

| attest to the acouracy and as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to

authenticity of this order/judgment

compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 CrP.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 CrP.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 CrP.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 CrP.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 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 CrP.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

MOHIT KUMAR

2022.12.06 15:14 justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under

| attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Section 482 CrP.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 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.0169 dated

12.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 379, 447,511,506 of IPC registered