Punjab-Haryana High Court
Himmat Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 July, 2022
CRM-M-21847-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
278
CRM-M-21847-2022
Decided on : 14.07.2022
Himmat Singh and others
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Jagmeet Singh Moudgil, Advocate for
Mr. A. S. Dhindsa, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 91 dated 23.06.2014 under Sections 324, 323, 148 and 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 326 IPC added later on) registered
at Police Station Sadar Kotakpura, District Faridkot (Annexure P-1) and
judgment and order of sentence dated 16.05.2018 (Annexure P-2) and
all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the
compromise
On 19.05.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the
following order:-
"This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No.91 dated 23.06.2014 registered under
1 of 18
Sections 324/323/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Section 326 of IPC has been added later on) at Police Station
Sadar Kotkapura, District Faridkot (Annexure P-1) and
judgment and order of sentence dated 16.05.2018 (Annexure P-
2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the
basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all
the persons concerned are party to the compromise. It is further
submitted that against the judgment of conviction, an appeal is
pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot.
Notice of motion for 14.07.2022.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG,
Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-
State and Mr. Angraze Singh Dhindsa, Advocate appears on
behalf of respondent No.2 and has reaffirmed the abovesaid
facts as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa
Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements qua
compromise within a period of 15 days.
The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit a
report on or before the next date of hearing containing the
following information:-
1. Number of persons arrayed as accused.
2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender?
3. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and
without any coercion or undue influence?
4. Whether the accused persons are involved in any other
FIR or not?
5. The trial Court is also directed to record the statement
of the Investigating Officer as to how many
victims/complainants are there in the FIR "
In pursuance of the said order, a report has been submitted
by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot to the Registrar General
2 of 18
of this Court. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"Statement of ASI Jaswinder Singh No.137/FDK,
posted at PS Sadar Kotakpura has also been recorded to
the effect that in the present case ASI Charanjit Singh
was Investigating Officer, who has now retired. He has
brought the police file of the present case and he is fully
conversant with the details of the case. The present FIR
No.91 dated 23.06.2014, under Section 324/323/148/149
IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on) was registered
against accused namely Himmat Singh, Sona Singh
@Gurdit Singh, Roshan Singh, Mangal Singh and Lali
Singh. Out of these accused persons, accused Lali Singh
was declared proclaimed person vide order dated
08.02.2016. He further stated that as per police record,
neither of accused persons is involved in any other FIR.
He further stated that FIR was registered on the
complaint/statement of Des Raj. There was no other
complainant/victim/injured in the present FIR. Original
statement of ASI Jaswinder Singh has been attached
herewith.
Report of Addl. Ahlmad of the Court was also
called, as per which, case bearing No.CHI-353-2014
was decided by Sh. Suresh Kumar, the then Ld. JMIC,
Faridkot vide judgment dated 16.05.2018 whereby
accused Himmat Singh, Gurdit Singh @ Sona, Roshan
Singh and Mangal Singh were convicted. Accused Lali
Singh was declared proclaimed person vide order dated
08.02.2016 by the Court of Sh. Vishesh, the then Ld.
CJM, Faridkot.
On the basis of statements made by the parties
before me, the compromise on the face of it appears to
3 of 18
be genuine one having been arrived at by the parties
with the intervention of respectables, which in turn is
aimed at maintaining brotherhood and harmony between
the parties and is thus for the welfare of the parties as
well. There is nothing on the record to even doubt the
genuineness of the compromise so arrived at between the
parties.
With these submissions, the report with regard to
the compromise is being submitted accordingly for the
kind perusal of His Lordship please.
Submitted please."
A perusal of the said report would show that it has been
stated that the statements of the complainant as well as the accused have
been recorded in the case and both have stated that the matter has been
compromised and they have no objection in case the FIR is quashed. It
is further stated that the statement of the complainant has been made
voluntarily without any fear, coercion or pressure.
As per the above-reproduced report, there are five accused
persons in the present case and the present petition has been filed by
four accused and a prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioners
as well as counsel for the complainant that the FIR qua the petitioners
be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2
have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as
Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another,
reported as 2012 (12) SCC 401, to contend that where there is a partial
compromise with some of the accused then also, the proceedings
4 of 18
against the said petitioner/accused should be quashed as the same would
not even remotely result in conviction of the said accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the
judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed in CRM-M-16318-2015 titled as
Dalip Mandal and another Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others
in which case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to allow
the petition qua the petitioners only although, the matter had not been
compromised between all the parties.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has again reiterated
that the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest
of all the persons and would help in bring out peace and amity between
the parties.
Brief facts of the present case are that FIR No. 91 dated
23.06.2014 was registered against 5 persons by Desraj Singh for
havaing caused injuries to him. One of the accused namely Lalit Singh
was declared proclaimed person vide order dated 08.02.2016 an the trial
against the present petitioners was concluded vide judgment dated
16.05.2018 vide which the petitioners were convicted as under:-
"Himmat Singh
Under Sentence Fine In default of
Section fine to
further
undergo RI
326 IPC Rigorous Rs.500/- 15 days
Imprisonment for
3 years
5 of 18
323 IPC r/w Rigorous -
Section 149 Imprisonment for
IPC 6 months
148 IPC Rigorous Rs.200/- 5 days
Imprisonment for
1 year
Gurdit Singh alias Sona
Under Sentence Fine In default of
Section fine to
further
undergo RI
326 IPC r/w Rigorous Rs.500/- 15 days
Section 149 Imprisonment for
3 years
323 IPC Rigorous
Imprisonment for
6 months
148 IPC Rigorous Rs.200/- 5 days
Imprisonment for
1 year
Roshan Singh
Under Sentence Fine In default of
Section fine to
further
undergo RI
326 IPC r/w Rigorous Rs.500/- 15 days
Section 149 Imprisonment for
IPC 3 years
323 IPC Rigorous - -
Imprisonment for
6 months
148 IPC Rigorous Rs.200/- 5 days
Imprisonment for
1 year
6 of 18
Mangal Singh
Under Sentence Fine In default of
Section fine to
further
undergo RI
326 IPC r/w Rigorous Rs.500/- 15 days
Section 149 Imprisonment for
IPC 3 years
323 IPC Rigorous - -
Imprisonment for
6 months
148 IPC Rigorous Rs.200/- 5 days
Imprisonment for
1 year
All the sentences shall run concurrently. Period already
undergone by the convicts, if any be deducted from substantive sentence.
Case property if any be dealt with under rules after expiry of period of
appeal/revision. File be consigned to the record-room."
Thereafter, an appeal against the said judgement has been
filed and during the pendency of the said appeal, the present
compromise dated 21.04.2022 has been effected and as per the report of
the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot, the said compromise is
genuine and has been effected voluntarily, without any coercion or
undue influence.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
compromise is genuine and bonafide and has referred to the judgment
of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-17272-2015 dated
28.01.2016 titled as "Ram Parkash and others Vs. State of Punjab and
7 of 18
others" to contend that under similar circumstances, the petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. was entertained and the FIR with all subsequent
proceedings was quashed and even the judgment of conviction was set
aside on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the
latest judgment dated 29.09.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Criminal Appeal no.1489 of 2012 titled as "Ramgopal & Anr. vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh" and connected matter and has prayed
that the present petition be allowed.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition for
quashing and submitted that in the present case, the petitioners have
already been convicted.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has admitted the fact
that the matter has been compromised and stated that same is in the best
interest of all the persons and would help in bringing out peace and
amity between the petitioners and respondent no.2 and their family. He
prayed that the present petition be allowed.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramgopal and
Anr.'s case (supra) has discussed in detail the power of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. along with other issues. The relevant portion
of said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
2. The prosecution version, arising out of FIR dated 3rd
November 2000, Police Station Ambah, Morena, M.P. is
8 of 18
that on account of certain monetary dispute, the
Appellants abused and assaulted Padam Singh
(Complainant). Appellant No.1 is alleged to have struck
the Complainant with a pharsa , which resultantly cut off
the little finger of his left hand. Appellant No.2 also
struck lathi blows on the body of the Complainant.
Appellants were thereafter committed for trial under
Sections 294, 323 and 326 read with 34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC') and Section 3 of the
Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes) Act, 1989. Upon analyzing the evidence, the
Learned Judicial Magistrate(FC), Ambah, convicted the
Appellants under Sections 294, 323 and 326 read with
34 IPC with a maximum sentence of three years under
Section 326 read with 34 IPC.
xxx xxx xxx
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
predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled
irrespective of the fact that trial has already been
concluded or appeal stands dismissed against
9 of 18
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
extraordinary 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. and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
xxx xxx xxx
19. We thus sum 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
extraordinary 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
10 of 18
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 the purported offence and/or other
relevant considerations."
A perusal of the abovesaid judgment would show that it has
been held that the extra ordinary power is enjoined upon a High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which can be invoked beyond the metes and
bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. It has further been observed that criminal
proceedings involving non henious offences can be annulled
irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded and appeal
stands dismissed against conviction and that handing out punishment is
not the sole form of delivering justice. Thus, 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 Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Parkash's case
(supra), has allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. under
similar circumstances. The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:
"Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC is
for quashing of the FIR No.225, dated 24.08.2005
(Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506, 148
and 149 IPC(subsequently added Section 308 and 336
IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahar,
11 of 18
District-Nawanshahar, on the basis of compromise dated
06.02.2015(Annexure P-4) and all other subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom including the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, both dated 25.09.2013
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby the accused-petitioners,
were convicted and sentenced...
xxx--xxx--xxx
Quashing of the aforesaid FIR and setting aside
of the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated
25.09.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, is sought on the basis of
compromise dated 06.02.2015 (Annexure P-4), entered
into between the parties during the pendency of the
appeal before this Court.
xxx--xxx--xxx
This Court in the case of Sube Singh and another
Versus State of Haryana and another 2013(4) RCR
(Criminal) 102 has considered the compounding of
offences at the appellate stage and has observed that
even when appeal against the conviction is pending
before the Sessions Court and parties entered into a
compromise, the High Court is vested unparallel power
under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash criminal proceedings
at any stage so as to secure the ends of justice and has
observed as under:-
"15. The refusal to invoke power under Section
320 CrPC, however, does not debar the High
Court from resorting to its inherent power under
Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and pass
an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of
justice.
16. As regards the doubt expressed by the learned
Single Judge whether the inherent power under
12 of 18
Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash
the criminal proceedings on the basis of
compromise entered into between the parties can
be invoked even if the accused has been held
guilty and convicted by the trial Court, we find
that in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2008(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 910 : (2008)5 SCC 794, the
unfortunate matrimonial dispute was settled after
the appellant (husband) had been convicted under
Section 498A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
18 months' imprisonment and his appeal was
pending before the first appellate court. The Apex
Court quashed the criminal proceedings keeping
in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case and in the interest of justice observing
that "continuation of criminal proceedings would
be an abuse of the process of law" and also by
invoking its power under Article 142 of the
Constitution. Since the High Court does not
possess any power akin to the one under Article
142 of the Constitution, the cited decision cannot
be construed to have vested the High Court with
such like unparallel power.
17. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction
exercisable by the High Court under Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code with a view to prevent
the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice,
however, is wide enough to include its power to
quash the proceedings in relation to not only the
non compoundable offences notwithstanding the
bar under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code
but such a power, in our considered view, is
exercisable at any stage save that there is no
13 of 18
express bar and invoking of such power is fully
justified on facts and circumstances of the case.
18. xxx xxx
19. xxx xxx
20. xxx xxx
21. In the light of these peculiar facts and
circumstances where not only the parties but their
close relatives (including daughter and son-in-law
of respondent No.2) have also supported the
amicable settlement, we are of the considered
view that the negation of the compromise would
disharmonize the relationship and cause a
permanent rift amongst the family members who
are living together as a joint family.
Nonacceptance of the compromise would also
lead to denial of complete justice which is the
very essence of our justice delivery system. Since
there is no statutory embargo against invoking of
power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure
Code after conviction of an accused by the trial
Court and during pendency of appeal against such
conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the
inherent jurisdiction and strike down the
proceedings subject to certain safeguards.
22. Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated,
we allow this petition and set aside the judgement
and order dated 16.03.2009 passed in Criminal
Case No. 425-1 of 2000 of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, on the basis of
compromise dated 08.08.2011 arrived at between
them and their step-mother respondent No.2 (Smt.
Reshma Devi) w/o late Rajmal qua the petitioners
only. As a necessary corollary, the criminal
complaint filed by respondent No.2 is dismissed
14 of 18
qua the petitioners on the basis of above-stated
compromise. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by
the petitioners against the above-mentioned order
dated 16.03.2009 would be rendered infructuous
and shall be so declared by the first Appellate
Court at Hisar."
Similarly, in the case of Baghel Singh Versus
State of Punjab 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 578, whereby
the accused was convicted under Section 326 IPC and
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years, the parties entered into compromise during the
pendency of the appeal. This Court while relying upon
the judgment of Lal Chand Versus State of Haryana,
2009 (5) RCR (Criminal) 838 and Chhota Singh Versus
State of Punjab 1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 392 allowed
the compounding of offence in respect of offence under
Section 326 IPC at the appellate stage with the
observation that it will be a starting point in maintaining
peace between the parties, such offence can be
compounded.
xxx--xxx--xxx
Accordingly, FIR No.225, dated 24.08.2005
(Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506, 148
and 149 IPC (subsequently added Section 308 and 336
IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahar,
District-Nawanshahar and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, qua the accused petitioners, are
quashed, on the basis of compromise dated 06.02.2015
Annexure P-4), subject to payment of costs of
Rs.25,000/-, to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal
Services Authority, Chandigarh.
Consequently, the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, both dated 25.09.2013 passed by the
15 of 18
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh
Nagar, are set aside subject to payment of cost."
A coordinate Bench of this Court in a judgment
dated 09.03.2017 passed in CRR no.390 of 2017 titled as
"Kuldeep Singh vs. Vijay Kumar and another" has held as
under:-
"Reliance can be placed on Kaushalya Devi Massand
vs. Roopkishore Khore, 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 298
and Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal, AIR 2010
(SC) 1097. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court
in terms of Section 401 Cr.P.C. would result in bringing
about ends of justice between the parties in the event of
finding that the compromise is genuine, bonafide and
free from any undue influence.
The compromise in question would serve as a
everlasting tool in favour of the parties for which
indulgence can be given by this Court. The revisional
exercise would also be in consonance with the spirit of
Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The principle as laid down in Damodar S.
Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal, AIR 2010 (SC) 1097, would
be squarely fortified if the compromise in question is
allowed to be effected between the parties with leave of
the Court. In view of aforesaid, impugned judgment
dated 19.01.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which conviction and sentence of
the petitioner was upheld stands quashed. The revision
petition is allowed subject to deposit of 15% of the
cheque amount as per ratio laid down in Damodar S.
Prabhu's case (supra) to State Legal Services Authority,
failing which this order will be of no consequence.
Necessary consequences to follow."
16 of 18
Reliance in the abovesaid judgment was also placed upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's
case (supra) and thus, as per settled law, this Court has the power to set
aside the judgment of conviction against the petitioner on the basis of a
valid compromise. The compromise in the present case is genuine and
valid.
Keeping in view the law laid down in the abovesaid
judgment, more so the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Ramgopal & Anr's case (supra), the relevant parameters for
consideration as laid down by the said judgment, would be considered
by this Court. Firstly, the occurrence which has been involved in the
present petition can be categorized as purely personal / criminal act of
private nature. Secondly, the injuries which have been caused are not
dangerous to life and do not appear to exhibit element of mental
depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature, that
quashing the criminal proceedings of such like cases would override
public interest. Thirdly, in view of the injuries and the offence, it would
be immaterial that the petitioners have been convicted by the Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class. Fourthly, the compromise is without any coercion
or compulsion and has been entered into willingly and voluntarily as per
the report of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot. Fifthly, the
occurrence took place in the year 2014 and there is nothing to show that
any untoward incident has taken place after the same. Sixthly, the
petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 are the residents of the same
17 of 18
village i.e. village Dana Romana, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot and
thus, quashing of the present proceedings would bring peace and
harmony among the parties. Seventhly, the object of administration of
the criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of
the said amicable settlement between the parties and /or resultant
acquittal of the petitioners.
Thus, keeping in view abovesaid facts and circumstances,
this petition is allowed and FIR No. 91 dated 23.06.2014 under Sections
324, 323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 326 IPC
added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar Kotakpura, District
Faridkot (Annexure P-1) as well as all the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom are quashed, qua the petitioners. The judgment and
order of sentence dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Faridkot, (Annexure P-2) are set aside qua the present petitioners.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
July 14th, 2022
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
18 of 18
