Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vasan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236+2 CRM-M-54781-2022
Date of Decision: 22.12.2022
Vasan Singh and Others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. D.S. Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab
Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate
for respondent Nos.2 and 4
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioners through instant petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C, on the basis of Compromise dated 03.06.2022 (Annexure P-2),
are seeking quashing of FIR No.57 dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure P-1)
under Sections 323, 324, 34, 325, 326 of IPC registered at Police
Station Ghuman, Police District Batala, Tehsil Batala, District
Gurdaspur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
In terms of order dated 29.11.2022 of this Court, Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Batala has submitted his report dated
15.12.2022. The relevant extracts of the report are as below:-
" It is further submitted that as per statements of
accused/petitioners, they are not appearing before the
Court nor they have been granted bail in the present
case as the compromise between the parties has been
effected at the earliest stage. It is further submitted that
as per statement of ASI Balwinder Singh, Belt
No.2501/BTL, no other proceedings are pending
against the accused/petitioners. No accused has been
declared as proclaimed offender."
1 of 5
Learned State counsel and learned counsel for private
respondents would submit that they have no objection, if the present
FIR and 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
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
2 of 5
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
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
3 of 5
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, thus, 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.57
dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 34, 325,
and 326 of IPC registered at Police Station Ghuman, Police District
4 of 5
Batala, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
22.12.2022
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
