Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarlok Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 1 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
237
CRR-209-2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.02.2022
TARLOK SINGH AND ANOTHER
... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG Punjab.
Mr. Raminder Joon, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
****
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral)
Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
Challenge in the present petition is to the judgment dated
16.01.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, vide which the
appeal preferred by the petitioners against judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned trial Court, was dismissed. Vide the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 16.03.1999 passed by Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Patti, petitioner No.1-Tarlok Singh was convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 326, 325 and 324/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-
each, under Sections 325 and 326 and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year under Section 324/34 IPC.
1 of 6
237 CRR-209-2008 (O&M) -2-
Petitioner No.2-Gurinder Singh was convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 324, 325/34 and 326/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 01 year each, besides payment of fine of Rs.200/-
each under Sections 325/34 and 326/34 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to
run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, during the
pendency of the present petition, Didar Singh-complainant in the present case
passed away on 13.12.2016. It is further submitted that the petitioners are on
bail after their sentence was suspended vide order dated 22.02.2008 passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court. Still further, it is submitted that now a
compromise dated 06.09.2019 has been effected between the petitioners and
respondents No.2 and 3 (legal heirs of the deceased-complainant). It is yet
further submitted that the parties may be allowed to compound the offences on
the basis of the said compromise.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners
relies upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal
Appeal No.1489 of 2021 titled Ramgopal and Another vs The State of Madhya
Pradesh, decided on 29.09.2021.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has not disputed the
fatum of compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the said
respondents.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners have been facing the agony of trial since 1995.
Admittedly, parties to the lis are co-villagers and having adjoining lands. The
2 of 6
237 CRR-209-2008 (O&M) -3-
complainant has expired and a compromise has been effected between the
petitioners and the legal heirs of the complainant i.e. respondents No.2 and 3,
meaning thereby that the dispute between the parties stands amicably settled.
The offence against which the petitioners were charged are not heinous in
nature.
This Court is conscious of the fact that the extra-ordinary
jurisdiction vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised in exceptional
cases, but keeping in view the protracted trial faced by the petitioners and the
fact that the compromise has been effected between the petitioners and the legal
heirs of the complainant, this Court deems it a fit case to exercise such
jurisdiction, to meet the ends of justice.
The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs.
State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of
Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that
compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during
proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in
case of involving non-compoundable offence.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of
Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held as under:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
3 of 6
237 CRR-209-2008 (O&M) -4-
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power
to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such
power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be
fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the
offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in
nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act
or the offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal
proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on
different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, financial,mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties
have resolved their entire dispute In this category of cases, High
Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of
the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case
would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the
victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it
would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue
with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
4 of 6
237 CRR-209-2008 (O&M) -5-
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that
criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within
its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
The same view has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in
case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2)
RCR (Criminal) 482.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramgopal's case (supra) while
considering its earlier judgments, including the one in Gian Singh's case
(supra), has held as under-
"19. We, thus, sump up and hold that as opposed to Section
320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the
parties in respect of offences `compoundable' within the statutory framework,
the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked
beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate
that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the
context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and
effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the
injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the
victim; & (iv) conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence
of purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to
live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal
5 of 6
237 CRR-209-2008 (O&M) -6-
proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, while allowing the parties to compound the offences
on the basis of the compromise, the present revision petition is allowed and all
the proceedings arising out of FIR No.135 dated 30.06.1995, under Sections
326, 325, 324, 323, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Patti, including the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.03.1999 passed by Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Patti and the order dated 16.01.2008 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, are hereby quashed, subject to payment
of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners to be deposited with the Police
Welfare Fund, Punjab.
Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms
and conditions of the compromise dated 06.09.2019.
01.02.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
Aman Jain JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
