Sukhpal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 14772 P&H

CRM-M-39284-2015                                                   -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

226                                    CRM-M-39284-2015
                                       Date of Decision : 21.11.2022

Sukhpal Singh                                        ......... Petitioner

                                Versus


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


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Mr.Jai Parkash Rana, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Amish Sharma, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

            Mr.Vikas Kumar Rana, Advocate for
            Mr. Talwinder Singh, 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.112 dated 05.11.2015, under Sections 304-A,

279, 427 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Fazilka

(Annexure P-1), and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on

the basis of compromise-deed/affidavit dated 13.11.2015 (Annexure P-2).

In terms of order dated 19.11.2015, learned JMIC, Abohar has

submitted his report dated 11.01.2016. The relevant extracts of the report

are as below :-

"Complainant-injured Kali Charan and Kushma Rani got recorded their statement to the effect that FIR No.112 dated 05.11.2015 under Sections 304-A/279/427 IPC was registered against the accused on the statement made by complainant Kali Charan. They further deposed that compromise dated 13.11.2015 Ex. PA has

1 of 5

been effected between the parties and on the basis of compromise they have quashing petition bearing No. CRM-M-39284 of 2015. The compromise has been effected between the parties without any pressure, coercion and without any undue influence for the betterment of both the parties. Similarly, Sukhpal Singh, the accused has suffered statement taut a compromise has been effected between him and complaintat and brought on file compromise deed dated 13.11.2015 as Ex. PA. He further deposed that now on the basis of said compromise they have filed quashing petition bearing as CRM-M-39284 of 2015 and prayed for quashing the said FIR on the basis of compromise and that compromise has been effected between the parties without any pressure, coercion and without any undue influence for the betterment of both the parties. He has never been declared as proclaimed offender in the said FIR From the statement suffered by the person from the affected party namely complainant-injured Kali Charan son of Ram Sanehi and Kushma Rani wife of Late Avtar Singh and Sukhpal Singh son of Teja Singh, person from the accused party, of above said case/FIR, it makes out that the parties of the present petition pending before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, have compromised the matter with their free will and full senses, volition of the parties, without any fear, apprehension, undue influence or coercion. This compromise has been effected between these parties so that they may live in peace and harmony and to avoid any future conflict/enmity between the parties. So this compromise between these parties appears to be genuine and valid."

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

2 of 5

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 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

3 of 5

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- 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

4 of 5

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, 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.112 dated

05.11.2015, under Sections 304-A, 279, 427 of IPC, registered at Police

Station Sadar Abohar, District Fazilka (Annexure P-1) and all other

consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the

petitioner(s).

                                          ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                JUDGE
21.11.2022
anju
                 Whether speaking/reasoned       Yes/No
                 Whether Reportable              Yes/No



                                        5 of 5