Rupinder Singh @Pinda And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 16925 P&H

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                    AT CHANDIGARH
                 241                                CRM-M-54492-2022
                                                    Date of Decision: 15.12.2022
                 Rupinder Singh @ Pinda and Another                ...Petitioners

                                                            Versus
                 State of Punjab and Another                                        ...Respondents

                 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
                 Present:-              Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate,
                                        for the petitioner
                                        Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab
                        Mr. Anchit Singla, Advocate, for
                        Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate,
                        for respondent No.2
                        ****
                 JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

The instant petition, on the basis of compromise dated

14.11.2022 (Annexure P-4), has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

seeking setting aside of judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 23.10.2019 (Annexure P-2), whereby JMIC, Barnala, in CIS

No.CHI/435/2017 has awarded sentence under different Sections of

IPC and maximum sentence awarded is 2 years.

In terms of order dated 23.11.2022 of this Court, JMIC,

Barnala, has submitted his report dated 01.12.2022. The relevant

extracts of the report are as below:

"(i) As per above statement of parties, it appears that parties have voluntarily entered into compromise and the compromise between the parties is genuine and the compromise is not the result of any fraud or misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the parties.

(ii) As per above statements and report, it is respectfully submitted that in this case, petitioners i.e. petitioner no.1 Rupinder Singh @ Pinda and petitionr no.2 Harmandeep Singh have been convicted vide MOHIT KUMAR judgment dated 23.10.2019 passed by Ms. Kulwinder 2022.12.15 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Kaur, the then Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barnala and appeal is pending against the said judgment in the Court of Sh. Devinder Kumar Gupta, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala and petitioners i.e. petitioner no.1 Rupinder Singh @ Pinda and petitioner no.2 Harmandeep Singh are appearing in the Court of Sh. Devinder Kumar Gupta, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala and the petitionrs are on bail.

(iii) As per above statements and report, no any other proceeding is pending against the accused/petitioners.

(iv) As per above statements and report, none of the accused has been declared proclaimed offender."

Learned State counsel and counsel for the private

respondent would submit that they have no objection if judgment of

conviction 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 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 MOHIT KUMAR 2022.12.15 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

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 of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 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 MOHIT KUMAR 2022.12.15 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

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. 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."

Concededly, appeal against judgment of conviction and

order of sentence is pending before learned Sessions Judge, Barnala,

who vide order dated 19.11.2019 (Annexure P-3) has suspended the

sentence of the petitioners, during the pendency of the appeal.

MOHIT KUMAR 2022.12.15 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

From the perusal of the FIR, judgment of conviction & order

of sentence, report of the Court below 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. 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. Judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.10.2019 (Annexure P-2)

passed by JMIC, Barnala, in CIS No.CHI/435/2017 and all

consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed.

                                                                           (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
                                                                                 JUDGE

                 15.12.2022
                 Mohit Kumar

                                           Whether speaking/reasoned      Yes/No
                                           Whether reportable             Yes/No




MOHIT KUMAR
2022.12.15 15:49
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment