Sandeep Saini And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 17147 P&H

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH
243
                                               CRM-M-42729-2021 (O&M)
                                               Date of Decision: 19.12.2022
SANDEEP SAINI AND ORS
                                                                    ... Petitioners
                                      Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
                                                                  ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:     Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, AAG Haryana.

             Mr. Gagan Bajaj, Advocate
             for respondents No.2 and 3.

                      ****

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral)

CRM-40983-2022

This is an application for impleading Gurjeet Singh @ Gurjit

Singh, as respondent No.4 in the array of parties and for placing on

record the amended memo of parties. The application is duly supported

by an affidavit.

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners submits that

Gurjeet Singh @ Gurjit Singh is one of the victims and thus a necessary

party.

With no objection from the counsel opposite, the present

application is allowed and Gurjeet Singh @ Gurjit Singh is hereby

ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.4 in the array of parties.

Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

1 of 6

CRM-M-42729-2021

The trial of the petitioners in case FIR No. 04 dated

03.01.2016, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 427 and 506

IPC, (Sections 325 and 201 IPC were added later on), at Police Station

Sector-5, Panchkula, has culminated into their conviction and they have

been substantively sentenced. They have challenged the order of

conviction and sentence by way of an appeal before the learned Sessions

Court, Panchkula. During the pendency thereof, it is claimed that the

parties have entered a compromise dated 25.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) with

the intervention of respectable persons.

In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioners

relies upon the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in

Sube Singh and Another vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2013(4) RCR

(Criminal) 102.

Vide order dated 11.10.2021 passed by this Court, the trial

Court/Illaqa Magistrate had been directed to record the statements of the

parties with regard to the genuineness and authenticity of the

compromise.

In compliance thereof, the learned District & Sessions Judge,

Panchkula, has submitted a report, vide letter dated 01.12.2021, which

indicates that the parties had appeared before him and got recorded their

respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise. As

per the report, the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine

and without any pressure or coercion from any corner.

Hon'ble the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab &

2 of 6

Ors. 2012(10) SCC 303 has held as under:-

"48. The question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable Under Section 320 of the Code.

49. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, 'nothing in this Code' which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

50. In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power Under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or

(ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.

51. In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of

3 of 6

administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection."

In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are

higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered

according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding

ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or

persecution.

The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder

Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052,

while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of

compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s) has held that there is no

statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this

Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Further, the same cannot be limited to

matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the

4 of 6

proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar

under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and

to secure the ends of justice.

In the case of Sube Singh & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.

Crl. Misc. No. M-38140 of 2011, decided on 09.04.2014, a Division

Bench of this Court while dealing with the question, as to whether the

criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C. even after the accused was found guilty and convicted by the

trial court and the matter is sub-judice before the appellate Court,

answered the reference in the affirmative. Relying upon the decisions

rendered in Kulwinder Singh and Gian Singh (supra), the Court observed

as under:

"16. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a view of prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice, however, is wide enough to include its power to quash the proceedings in relation to not only the non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. but such a power, in our considered view, is exercisable at any stage save that there is no express bar and invoking of such power is fully justified on facts and circumstances of the case."

It has further been held that:

"20 ... Since there is no statutory embargo against invoking of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after conviction of an accused by the trial Court and during pendency of appeal against such conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings subject to certain safeguards."

5 of 6

Adverting to the facts of present case, the parties have

mutually settled their dispute and have buried the hatchet. There is

nothing on record which is suggestive of the fact that the petitioners are

pervious convicts.

Keeping in view the pronunciation of law and also the facts

noticed above, in my opinion, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 04

dated 03.01.2016, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 427 and

506 IPC, (Sections 325 and 201 IPC were added later on), at Police

Station Sector-5, Panchkula, along with all the consequential proceedings

arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of

compromise dated 25.09.2021 (Annexure P-1), subject to the petitioners

depositing the costs of Rs.15,000/- with the Poor Patients' Welfare Fund,

Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER),

Chandigarh.

As a consequence thereof, the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 05/07.02.2020 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panchkula, are also set aside and the

petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the

terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.

19.12.2022                                             (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
Aman Jain                                                      JUDGE
              Whether speaking/reasoned            :     Yes/No
              Whether reportable                   :     Yes/No




                                          6 of 6