Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajwinder Singh @ Raja Panch And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 December, 2022
CRM-M-56464-2022 -1-
234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-56464-2022
Date of Decision:23.12.2022
RAJWINDER SINGH @ RAJA PANCH AND ORS.
......... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Ms. Manju Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Aarush Neeraj Vaid, Advocate for
Ms. Tanika Goel, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 34, dated 30.03.2020, under Sections 325, 323, 506, 188, 269, 270
and 34 of IPC and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005
(Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Nandgarh, Bathinda, and all
other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise/ affidavit dated 10.11.2022 (Annexure P-2).
This is a case of cross version. Both the parties have lodged
complaint against each other. There is one FIR, however, police has filed
two challans.
In terms of order dated 05.12.2022 of this Court, learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda has submitted his report dated
20.12.2022. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-
"In view of the aforementioned statements, the point-
wise report of this court is as follows:-
1 of 5
i) As per the statements of the parties, the
compromise between them is genuine, voluntary and
without any coercion or undue influence.
ii) All the accused/petitioners involved in the present
FIR are appearing before this Court and are on bail.
iii) As per statement of the Investigating Officer no
other proceeding is pending against the
accused/petitioners.
iv) As per judicial record and statement of the
Investigating Officer, accused have not been declared
proclaimed offenders."
Statement of Investigating Officer was recorded by Trial Court
and said statement is part of report dated 20.12.2022 submitted by learned
Trial Court.
Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating
Officer and learned counsel for the complainant submitted that State they
have no objection if FIR and consequent proceedings in view of
compromise 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
2 of 5
Section 320Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of
Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the
language of Section 320Cr.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 320Cr.P.C. is
not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the
High Court vested in it under Section 482Cr.P.C. The
High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can
press Section 482Cr.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
3 of 5
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 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 between 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
4 of 5
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. 34, dated 30.03.2020, under Sections 325, 323, 506,
188, 269, 270 and 34 of IPC and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act,
2005 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Nandgarh, Bathinda,
registered at Police Station Nandgarh, Bathinda, and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
23.12.2022
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
