Amandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 14677 P&H

CRM-M-40779-2019                                                     -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

226                                    CRM-M-40779-2019
                                       Date of Decision : 18.11.2022

Amandeep Singh                                ......... Petitioner

                                Versus


State of Punjab and others                    ......... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Mr. Vikasdeep Singh, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate
            for respondents No. 2 and 3.

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

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

seeking setting aside of judgment dated 21.08.2017 passed by SDJM,

Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-2) on the basis of

compromise dated 11.09.2019 (Annexure P-4).

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2019

directed the parties to furnish their affidavits in support of compromise

arrived between them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed affidavit dated

21.01.2020 of petitioner-Amandeep Singh in Court and learned counsel for

respondents No.2 and 3 has filed affidavit dated 21.01.2020 in support of

their compromise which are taken on record.

The petitioners have preferred appeal against impugned

1 of 5

judgment dated 21.08.2017 and it is stated to be pending before Appellate

Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of recent

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ramgopal and another Vs. State

of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC online SC 834' and a Division Bench of

this Court in Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another,

2014 (2) Crimes 299, proceedings can be quashed even at appellate stage.

Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection if

impugned judgment is quashed on the basis of compromise and affidavits of

the parties.

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 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 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

2 of 5

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 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-

3 of 5

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 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, affidavits of the parties

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

4 of 5

it is well-known fact that courts are already over burdened. In view of

judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court

cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, judgment of conviction can be

set aside if appeal is pending before Appellate Court. Parties are at ad-idem

that appeal against impugned judgment is pending before Appellate Court.

In view of above facts and circumstances, the present petition

deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed. The impugned judgment

and order dated 21.08.2017 (Annexure P-2) is set aside.

18.11.2022                                    ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
anju                                                JUDGE


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




                                     5 of 5