Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amandeep Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 December, 2022

CRM-M-56810-2022                                                       -1-

235       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                           CRM-M-56810-2022
                                           Date of Decision:23.12.2022

AMANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS                                  ......... Petitioners

                                       Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER                                ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :    Mr. Akbarjit Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

             Mr. S.S. Kang, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

                    ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of

FIR No.118 dated dated 24.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police

Station Division No.1, Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar under

Sections 451, 323, 427, 380, 148 and 149 IPC, and all other consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/ affidavit dated

03.10.2022 (Annexure P-2) and 04.10.2022 (Annexure P-3) respectively.

In terms of order dated 06.12.2022 of this Court, learned

JMIC, Jalandhar has submitted her report dated 21.12.2022. The relevant

extracts of the report are as below :-

"i. That there are six accused namely Amandeep Singh, Puneet, Sunny, Karan Kapoor, Arun Sharma and Rohit Kumar in this case. The compromise has been effected with all the accused.

ii. That none of the accused is proclaimed offender.

1 of 5

iii. The compromise is voluntary, genuine and without any coercion or any undue influence. iv. That as per statement of Investigating Officer, accused Karan Kapoor and accused Arun Sharma are also involved in other cases. Accused Karan Kapoor is involved in FIR No.55 dated 10.03.2022 under Sections 341, 295, 506, 149, 120-B, 323 of IPC, PS Basti Bawa Khel Jalandhar and accused Arun Sharma is involved in FIR No.109, dated 22.07.2020 under Section 323, 324, 341 and 506 of IPC PS Div. No.1, Jalandhar. v. That as per the statement of Investigating Officer there is only one complainant in the present FIR namely Shubham.

vi. Statement of complainant and accused qua compromise has also been recorded.

vii. The case is still at pre trial state."

Statement of Investigating Officer was recorded by Trial Court

and said statement is part of report dated 21.12.2022 submitted by learned

Trial Court.

Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating

Officer submitted that State has 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

2 of 5

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 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

3 of 5

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 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

4 of 5

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, 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.118 dated dated 24.09.2022 (Annexure P-1)

registered at Police Station Division No.1, Police Commissionerate,