Uggar Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 14148 P&H

CRM-M-35037-2019                                                              -1-


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

214                                     CRM-M-35037-2019
                                        Date of Decision : 11.11.2022

Uggar Singh and another                               ......... Petitioners
                                 Versus
State of Punjab and another                          ......... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :    MrG.S.Khokhar, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

             Mr.D.P.S.Jaura, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

           ****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

seeking quashing of FIR No. 2 dated 15.01.2013, under Sections 336, 506,

427, 34 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Maur,

District Bathinda (Annexure P-1), and all the subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise-deed/affidavit dated

11.02.2013 (Annexure P-2).

In terms of order dated 26.11.2019, learned JMIC, Talwandi

Sabo has submitted his report dated 10.02.2020. The relevant extracts of

the report are as below :-

"3. It is submitted that statements of the parties are recorded bona fide and without any pressure and coercion

4. It is submitted that as per the statements of the parties, the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue

1 of 5

influence.

5. It is submitted that all the accused and legal heir of complainant/injured was party to the compromise.

6. It is submitted that as per statement of 10 Dharminder Pal and record, there is no criminal case pending against the parties.

7. It is submitted that as per statement of IO Dharminder Pal and record, there is no accused declared proclaimed offender in the present FIR.

8. It is submitted that as per statement of to Dharminder Pal, there is no petitioners/accused is convict in any other case.

9. It is further humbly submitted that as per the statements of the parties, the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

10 Report is submitted accordingly"

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:

"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

2 of 5

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 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

3 of 5

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 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

4 of 5

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. 2 dated

15.01.2013, under Sections 336, 506, 427, 34 IPC and Section 27 of Arms

Act, registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda (Anneuxre P-1)

and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua

the petitioner(s).

                                          ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                JUDGE
11.11.2022
anju


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




                                        5 of 5