Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chamkaur Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 7 November, 2022
CRM-M-11071-2019 -1-
224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-11071-2019
Date of Decision: 04.11.2022
CHAMKAUR SINGH AND ORS ......... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: HC Baldev Singh.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No.35 dated 13.04.2018 under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC
registered at Police Station Salem Mehna District Moga (Anneuxre P-1),
and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise/ affidavit dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure P-2).
In terms of order dated 15.05.2019 of this Court, learned JMIC,
Moga, has submitted his report dated 09.07.2019. The relevant extracts of
the report are as below :-
"In the above noted criminal petition, in
furtherance to order dated 15.05.2019 passed in CRM-
M-15736-2019 in CRM-M- No.11071 of 2019, it is
humbly submitted that on 30.05.2019, petitioner no.1
Chamkaur Singh and Jagjit Singh Momi, Special power
of attorney holder of petitioners number 2 to 4 namely
Jarnail Singh, Tarlochan Singh and Rupinderjit Kaur as
well as respondent No.2 Sukhjit Singh have appeared in
the Court along with their counsels Shri Ajay Kumar
and Sh. R.S. Aulakh Advocates. Statements of the
petitioners No.1 and Jagjit Singh Momi (Special Power
of attorney holder of petitioners number 2 to 4 namely
Jarnail Singh, Tarlochan Singh and Rupinderjit Kaur)
1 of 5
as well joint statement of respondent 2 were recorded.
The parties stated that in unison that they had
voluntarily entered into a compromise and that they
were making statement in the Court voluntarily, free
from any duress or inducement.
As desired by the Hon'ble High Court the
pointwise report is submitted below:-
i. That there are total 4 accused who are nominated
in the present FIR. The final report is still to be
presented by the Investigating agency.
ii. As per record, no accused has been declared
Proclaimed offender in the present case.
Iii. The compromise so effected between the parties is
genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue
influence.
iv. As per the statement of accused, they are not
involved in any other case.
v. Statement of Investigating Officer namely HC
Baldev Singh N.998/Moga, PS Mehna has also been
recorded. As per the statement of Investigating Officer,
there is only one victim/complainant i.e. Sukhjit Singh
Malhi in the present FIR."
Statement of Investigation Officer was recorded by Trial Court
and said statement is part of report dated 09.07.2019 submitted by learned
Trial Court.
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
2 of 5
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
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.
3 of 5
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. 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
4 of 5
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, 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.35 dated 13.04.2018 under Sections 420, 406 and 120-
B IPC registered at Police Station Salem Mehna District Moga (Anneuxre
P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed
qua the petitioner(s).
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
04.11.2022
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
