Baldev Singh @ Maggu vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 17646 P&H

CRM-M-27763-2019                                            -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

228                                   CRM-M-27763-2019
                                      Date of Decision : 23.12.2022

Baldev Singh                                                ......... Petitioner

                                Versus


State of Punjab and another                              . ........ Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL


Present :   Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr.Umesh Kumar Kanwar, Advocate
            for respondent No.2.

                  ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioner, through instant petition, is seeking quashing of

FIR No.131 dated 14.6.2018 (Annexure P-1) under Section 380 of IPC,

1860, registered at Police Station, Chheharta and all the subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 9.5.2019

(Annexure P-2).

In terms of order dated 3.7.2019, learned JMIC, Amritsar, has

submitted his report dated 16.12.2022. The relevant extracts of the report

are as below :-

"I am satisfied that compromise is genuine and has been effected between the parties voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence. It is further submitted that as per the statement of investigating officer ASI Kashmir Singh No. 1708/ASR City Police Station Kot Khalsa,

1 of 5

Amritsar, he is the investigating officer of the present case. There is only one accused involved in the present case namely Baldev Singh @ Maggu. Accused has been re4leased on bail. Accused has never declared as proclaimed offender in the present case. The accused in not involved in any other case, except the present case."

Learned State counsel and counsel for private respondent

would submit that they have no objection if the present FIR and

consequential 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 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

2 of 5

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 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

3 of 5

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 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."

The dispute is between the family members. The complainant is

father of the accused.

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

4 of 5

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.131 dated

14.6.2018 (Annexure P-1) under Section 380 of IPC, 1860, registered at

Police Station, Chheharta and all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).

23.12.2022                               ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
paramjit                                           JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
             Whether Reportable                Yes/No




                                     5 of 5