Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
243 CRM-M-50742-2022
Date of Decision: 12.12.2022
Gurpreet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate, for
Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab
Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate,
for respondent No.2
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.223 dated 23.10.2021 (Annexure
P-1) under Sections 406, 420 & 120-B and Section 13 of Punjab Travel
Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station
Mataur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, on the basis of Compromise dated 25.08.2022
(Annexure P-2).
In terms of order dated 02.11.2022 of this Court, Addl.
CJM, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, has submitted his report dated 24.11.2022.
The relevant extracts of the report as below:-
"Hence, it is humbly submitted that in view of the
statement of I.O./ASI Sanjay Kumar, there are three
accused in the present case namely Gurpreet Singh
present petitioner and Amrit Kumar and Aman Kaur but
neither of the accused is on bail nor an of the accused
is arrested in the present case. Further, as per
statement of I.O./ASI Sanjay Kumar, apart from this
case i.e.FIR No.223 dated 23.10.2021, accused
petitioner Gurpreet Singh Dhanjal is also accused in
another three FIRs i.e. FIR No.129/ 02.06.2021 under
MOHIT KUMAR
2022.12.12 16:53
Section 420, 120-B IPC and Section 13 of Punjab
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
Travel Professional Act, 20914, FIR No.197/03.09.2021
under Section 420 IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel
Professional Act, 2014 and FIR No.116/18.10.2022
under Section 406, 420 IPC and Section 13 of Punjab
Travel Professional Act, 2014 P.S., Mataur. He further
stated that there is no other FIR pending or lodged in
P.S. Mataur as per their official record against the
remaining accused Amrit Kumar and Aman Kaur.
Further, as per statement of I.O./ASI Sanjay Kumar no
accused is declared as Proclaimed Offender in the
present case. Further, as per statement of above said
I.O./ASI Sanjay Kumar, no challan has been presented
in the present case as the investigation is still going on.
It is further submitted that the compromise effected
between the parties is genuine, voluntarily and without
any coercion or undue influence."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Jayrajsinh
Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported as
2012 (12) SCC 401, to contend that where there is a partial
compromise with some of the accused then also, the proceedings
against the said petitioner/accused should be quashed as the same
would not even remotely result in conviction of the said accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the
judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed in CRM-M-16318-2015 titled as
'Dalip Mandal and another Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and
others', in which case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was
pleased to allow the petition qua the petitioners only, although the
matter had not been compromised between all the parties.
Learned counsel for private respondent, on instructions
from private respondent-Joginder, undertakes that respondent shall not
raise grouse against other accused who are not party to the
MOHIT KUMAR
compromise. He further submits that petitioner is the main accused,
2022.12.12 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
thus, he has compromised with the petitioner and there is no need to
enter into compromise with other accused.
Learned State counsel would submit that matter is under
investigation and till date challan has not been presented and State
has no objection if the present FIR and all subsequent 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 Cr.P.C. Any such
attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition
and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the
exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or
latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.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 320 Cr.P.C. is not
an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High
Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High
Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances
MOHIT KUMAR
of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482
2022.12.12 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
Cr.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 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
MOHIT KUMAR
2022.12.12 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
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).
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
MOHIT KUMAR
2022.12.12 16:53 petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed. FIR No.223
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
dated 23.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406, 420 & 120-B
and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014,
registered at Police Station Mataur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali and
all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the
petitioners.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
12.12.2022
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHIT KUMAR
2022.12.12 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
