Rishi Verma vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 5250 P&H

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5250 P&H
Judgement Date : 25 April, 2023

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rishi Verma vs State Of Punjab And Another on 25 April, 2023

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058165




CRM-M-20091-2023                   -1-          2023:PHHC:058165


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

132                                       CRM-M-20091-2023
                                          Date of Decision : 25.04.2023

Rishi Verma                                               ......... Petitioner

                                      Versus

State of Punjab and another                               ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Mr.Aditya Dassaur, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

            Respondent No.2 in person along with counsel
            Ms. Savita, Advocate

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

The petitioner through instant petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C., on the basis of compromise, is seeking quashing of FIR No.353

dated 24.10.2020, under Section 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station

Sohana, District SAS Nagar (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential

proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that they have

amicably settled their all grievances. They have executed settlement deed

dated 12.05.2022 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this

Court.

In view of settlement deed, a petition under Section 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act was filed before the Family Court seeking divorce by

mutual consent. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Mohali, vide decree

dated 04.03.2023 has ordered to dissolve marriage of the parties. The

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058165

CRM-M-20091-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:058165

petitioner in terms of compromise has paid agreed amount towards

maintenance and alimony. The petitioner besides cash of Rs.15,000/-

towards litigation expenses paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-by way of demand

draft bearing No.019371 dated 15.04.2023 in Court to private respondent

who is present in person.

Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating

Officer and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that they have

no objection if FIR and consequent proceedings in view of compromise 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 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

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058165

CRM-M-20091-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:058165

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 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

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058165

CRM-M-20091-2023 -4- 2023:PHHC:058165

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 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, 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

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058165

CRM-M-20091-2023 -5- 2023:PHHC:058165

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