Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karamjit Singh Alias Soni And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049384
CRM-M-58271-2022 -1- 2023:PHHC:049384
271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-58271-2022
Date of Decision:11.04.2023
KARAMJIT SINGH ALIAS SONU AND ORS. ......... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab
assisted by ASI Resham Singh.
Mr. Munish Gulati, Advocate for
Mr. Deepak Kohli, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioners through instant petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C., on the basis of compromise, are seeking quashing of FIR No.29
dated 21.02.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC
and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station
Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur and all other consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
In terms of orders of this Court, learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Guruharsahai has submitted his report. It inter alia
confirms that all the parties appeared before the Court and tendered their
statements qua compromise arrived at between the parties; the
compromise is voluntary, genuine and without any coercion; no accused
is a proclaimed offender; all the accused as well complainant have
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049384
CRM-M-58271-2022 -2- 2023:PHHC:049384
entered into compromise.
Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating
Officer does not dispute the factual position and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 submitted that they have no objection if FIR and
consequent proceedings, in view of compromise, are quashed.
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that disputes
between the parties stand amicably settled and now they are residing
together.
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 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain
of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity
in the language of Section 320 Cr.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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049384
CRM-M-58271-2022 -3- 2023:PHHC:049384
to compound an offence within the framework of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against
invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in
it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping
in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case
and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482
Cr.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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049384
CRM-M-58271-2022 -4- 2023:PHHC:049384
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. 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 between 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049384
CRM-M-58271-2022 -5- 2023:PHHC:049384
Court and compromise arrived at 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 allowed.
FIR No.29 dated 21.02.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Sections
498A and 406 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, registered at
Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the
petitioner(s).
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
11.04.2023
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049384
5 of 5
