Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lovepreet Singh @ Lavi And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 November, 2022
CRM-M-36260-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
231 CRM-M-36260-2022
Date of Decision: 10.11.2022
Lovepreet Singh @ Lavi and others ......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Anurag Bansal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Shubham Mehta, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
seeking quashing of FIR No. 0061 dated 08.04.2022, under Sections 307,
323, 148, 149 IPC (Section 325 IPC added later on), registered at Police
Station Kotwali Bathinda, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1), and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise-
deed/affidavit dated 05.07.2022 (Annexure P-2).
In terms of order dated 17.08.2022, learned Additional District
& Sessions Judge, Bathinda has submitted his report dated 05.09.2022. The
relevant extracts of the report are as below :-
"There are as many as nine accused arrayed in the FIR
and found involved during investigation. Only three accused,
namely Rohit Bhargo, Gurpreet Singh @ Sewak @ Ninja and
1 of 5
Gurpreet Singh s/o Amarjit Singh were forwarded to face trial
by the police whereas at the time of presentation of final report
U/s 173 Cr.PC.
Six accused namely Amandeep Singh @ Amna, Jatinder
Singh, Lavi r/o Bagha, Gurpreet Singh @ Motu s/o Narinder
Singh, Happy s/o Gureep singh and Maan r/o Bandi, were yet
to be arrested.
However, all the above named nine accused have got
recorded their statements before this Court on 01.09.2022.
None of the accused of the above FIR is absconding.
Neither any accused has been declared as proclaimed
offender, nor proceedings are going on to declare him/her as
proclaimed offender
2. Sachin Kumar is complainant of the above FIR and
there is only one victim/witness Munish Sharma @
Kaku. Both complainant, victim/witness have appeared
and made their respective statements in support of the
compromise so effected between them.
3. The trial is pending for recording statements of
prosecution witnesses.
4. The compromise effected by the parties is quite genuine,
voluntary and out of free will of the parties."
Learned State counsel submits that he has 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:
2 of 5
"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.
13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings
3 of 5
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
only, for such offences have the potential to impact the
4 of 5
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. 0061 dated
08.04.2022, under Sections 307, 323, 148, 149 IPC (Section 325 IPC added
later on), registered at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, District Bathinda
(Anneuxre P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom
are quashed qua the petitioner(s).
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
10.11.2022
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
