Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Prakash Alias Prakash And ... vs State Of Haryana And Another on 27 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062211
CRM-M-55165-2022 1 2023:PHHC:062211
241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-55165-2022
Date of Decision:27.04.2023
Om Parkash @ Parkash and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Surender Singh, A.A.G., Punjab
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. N.S.Diwan, Advocate for
Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
****
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of cross version dated
27.10.2011 in FIR No.148 datged 24.10.2011, registered under Sections
323, 324, 325, 326, 34 IPC, at Police Station Bawani Khera, District
Bhiwani and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
31.03.2016, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated
14.11.2022 (Annexure P-4) having been arrived at between the parties.
2. It has been averred in the petition that an FIR No.148 dated
24.10.2011 was registered on the basis of statement of petitioner Bijender
against Jaibir, Vikas, Saroj @ Guddi, Reena and Monika under Sections
323, 324, 325, 326, 34 IPC, at Police Station Bawani Khera, District
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062211
CRM-M-55165-2022 2 2023:PHHC:062211
Bhiwani. It was alleged that respondent No.2 Jaibir registered cross version
in the abovesaid FIR on 27.10.2011 against the ptitioners. Investigation
was carried out by the police and the petitioners were arraigned as accused
in the cross version. The trial of both the cases was initiated in the court of
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani. After considering the matter, the
trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
31.03.2016, convicted and sentenced the petitioners to undergo simple
imprisonment for 06 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in
default of payment thereof to further undergo imprisonment for 01 month
each on each count under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34
IPC. An appeal was filed challenging the aforesaid judgment of conviction
and order of sentence which is stated to be pending.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise was arrived
at between the parties on 14.11.2022 and the same is on record as Annexure
P-4. On the basis of this compromise, the present petition was filed.
4. Vide order dated 29.11.2022, notice of motion was issued and
the parties were directed to appear before the lower Appellate Court and get
their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of the compromise.
The statements were ultimately recorded and report of lower Appellate
Court has been received.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that on the basis
of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2016, cross version dated
27.10.2011 in FIR No.148 dated 24.10.2011, registered under Sections 323,
324, 325, 326, 34 IPC, at Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani
and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed.
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062211
CRM-M-55165-2022 3 2023:PHHC:062211
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the record.
8. In Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another 2014 (2)
Crimes 299, a Division Bench of this Court has held that where an offence is
private in nature and is not against the whole society, the High Court would
be empowered to compound the offence even at the appellate stage. The
Division Bench held as under:-
11. The extent and sweep of inherent power exercisable by the
High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for
quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise
between the offender and the victim of crime in a case which is
not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., has since been
considered in extenso and answered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012)4 RCR
(Criminal) 543, laying down that the compounding of offence
and quashing of criminal proceedings are two separate things
and not interchangeable and that the two powers are distinct
and different although ultimate consequence may be the same.
It has been authoritatively ruled that where the offender and
victim have settled their dispute, the High Court in exercise of
its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is competent to
quash criminal proceedings even relating to the non-
compoundable offences though such a power need to be
invoked sparingly and not when the offences are heinous,
serious, of mental depravity or like murder, rape, dacoity etc.
The pronouncement thus says :-
"52. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by
the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper
for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the
exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and
inflexible guidelines can also be provided.
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062211
CRM-M-55165-2022 4 2023:PHHC:062211
53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground
of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same
thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not
interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding
of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially
different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the
High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In
compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is
circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and
the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the
other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for
quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the
ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although
the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of
indictment.
54. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim
has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it
does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings
will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands
that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace
is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful
effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously
endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe
to leave the crimedoer only because he and the victim have
settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid
compensation, yet certain crimes have been made
compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court.
In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or
other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or
offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062211
CRM-M-55165-2022 5 2023:PHHC:062211
between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all.
However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and
predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil,
mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where
the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim
have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of
the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable,
the High Court may within the framework of its inherent
power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or
F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is
hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not
quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and
ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative
and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and
no hard and fast category can be prescribed."
12. The decision in Gian Singh's case (supra) also approves the
view taken by a five-Judge Bench of this Court in Kulwinder
Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.
13. It is indeed now unarguable to say that the power
exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code for the quashing of criminal prosecution is
limited or affected by the provision of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
14. We may, however, hasten to add that power of the Court
under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code to `compound' an
offence on the basis of compromise between the accused and
the victim can be invoked only if the subject offence is
compoundable. In other words, power under Section 320
Criminal Procedure Code is not exercisable in relation to a case
of non-compoundable offence as ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in a string of decisions including (i) Surendra Nath
Mohanty v. State of Orissa, 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 683 : (1999)5 SCC
238; (ii) Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 306 :
(2005)1 SCC 343; and (iii) Gulab Das & Ors. v. State of MP, 2012(1)
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062211
CRM-M-55165-2022 6 2023:PHHC:062211
RCR (Criminal) 220 : 2011(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 381 :
(2011)10 SCC 765.
15. The refusal to invoke power under Section 320 Cr.P.C.,
however, does not debar the High Court from resorting to its
inherent power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code
and pass an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of
16. As regards the doubt expressed by the learned Single Judge
whether the inherent power under Section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis
of compromise entered into between the parties can be invoked
even if the accused has been held guilty and convicted by the
trial Court, we find that in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 : (2008)5 SCC
794, the unfortunate matrimonial dispute was settled after the
appellant (husband) had been convicted under Section 498A
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment
and his appeal was pending before the first appellate court. The
Apex Court quashed the criminal proceedings keeping in view
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice observing that "continuation of criminal
proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law" and also
by invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Since the High Court does not possess any power akin to the
one under Article 142 of the Constitution, the cited decision
cannot be construed to have vested the High Court with such
like unparallel power.
17. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by the
High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code with a
view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of
justice, however, is wide enough to include its power to quash
the proceedings in relation to not only the non compoundable
offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Criminal
Procedure Code but such a power, in our considered view, is
exercisable at any stage save that there is no express bar and
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062211
CRM-M-55165-2022 7 2023:PHHC:062211
invoking of such power is fully justified on facts and
circumstances of the case.
9. Recently in the case of Ram Gopal & Anr. vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh 2021 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
non-compoundable criminal cases of pre-dominantly private in nature can
be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if compromise is reached after
conviction. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320
Cr.P.C., 1973 where the Court is squarely guided by the
compromise between the parties in respect of offences
`compoundable' within the statutory framework, the
extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C., 1973 or vested in this Court under Article 142 of
the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds
of Section 320 Cr.P.C., 1973 Nonetheless, we reiterate that such
powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the
context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i)
Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society;
(ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of
compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv)
Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations.
10. Reverting to the facts of the present case, there is nothing on
record even to suggest that petitioners-accused had some criminal
antecedents or that they are habitual offenders. Parties are closely related
and the dispute arose at the spur of the moment and as normally happens in
families involved in agricultural work, the dispute was with regard to land
owned by the two families. In any case, the parties have buried the hatchet.
It is always in the interest of justice that trivial disputes should come to an
end because if such disputes keep lingering on, it sometimes gives rise to
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062211
CRM-M-55165-2022 8 2023:PHHC:062211
bigger disputes. I, therefore, do not find any reason to not set aside the
judgment vide which the petitioner-accused were convicted and to quash the
cross version dated 27.10.2011 in FIR No.148 datged 24.10.2011, registered
under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 34 IPC, at Police Station Bawani Khera,
District Bhiwani and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
31.03.2016, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of voluntary
compromise dated 14.11.2022 (Annexure P-4) entered into between the
parties which has been so reported by the trial Court vide its report dated
06.01.2023.
11. A perusal of the aforesaid report would show that the parties
have effected a genuine compromise without there being any pressure,
coercion or undue influence. The compromise in question is also found to
be fully in consonance with the direction issued by the Court in "Kulwinder
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr., 2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543", Sube Singh's case (supra) and
Ramm Gopal's case (supra)
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the report of the trial
Court accompanied by statements of both the parties, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2016, the cross version dated
27.10.2011 in FIR No.148 dated 24.10.2011, registered under Sections
323/324/325/326/34 IPC, at Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani and
all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the
petitioners.
The present petition stands allowed accordingly.
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062211
CRM-M-55165-2022 9 2023:PHHC:062211
However, it would always be open to the complainant to
approach the Court and seek recall of the order if there is any breach of the
compromise by the petitioners.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
27.04.2023
mamta
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062211
9 of 9
