Sawinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 17644 P&H

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH
237                                          CRM-M-57275-2022
                                             Date of Decision: 23.12.2022
Sawinder Singh and Others                                      ...Petitioners

                                  Versus

State of Punjab and Another                                  ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:-   Mr. Ravinder Pankaj, Advocate for
            Mr. Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate for the petitioners
            Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab
       Ms. Rashika Bansal, Advocate for
       Ms. Sukhveer Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2
       ****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioners through instant petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C, on the basis of Compromise dated 10.09.2022 (Annexure P-2),

are seeking quashing of FIR No.84 dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure P-1)

under Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station

Ramdas, District Amritsar Rural and all consequential proceedings

arising therefrom.

In terms of order dated 08.12.2022 of this Court, JMIC

Ajnala, has submitted her report dated 16.12.2022. The relevant

extracts of the report are as below:-

"As per record submitted by IO and as per statements of parties:-

i) As per statements of parties, it appears that compromise has been effected between the complainant and the accused persons is genuine and without any coercion or undue influence.

ii) None of the above-mentioned accused has been arrested so far and investigation is going on and challan has not been presented so far.

iii) No any other proceeding is pending against the accused/petitioner.

1 of 5

iv) None of the accused person has been declared PO/Proclaimed Person.

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent

No.2 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 toalteration, 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

2 of 5

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 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.

3 of 5

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, 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.84

dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC

registered at Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar Rural and all

4 of 5

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the

petitioners.

                                                      (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
                                                            JUDGE

23.12.2022
Mohit Kumar
               Whether speaking/reasoned            Yes/No
               Whether reportable                   Yes/No




                                    5 of 5