Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jaswinder Singh Khosa And Another vs State Of Punjab on 18 January, 2023

CRM-M-39417-2022                                                    -1-

292    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M-39417-2022
                                        Date of Decision:18.01.2023

JASWINDER SINGH KHOSA AND ANOTHER
                                                             ......... Petitioners

                                    Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB                                           ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :    Mr. S.S. Sangwan, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

             Mr. Chetan Gupta, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

                   ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of

FIR No. 0138, dated 28.06.2020, under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 34 of

IPC (later on added Section 354 of IPC and Section 30 of Arms Act),

registered at Police Station Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (Annexure

P-1), and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis

of compromise/ affidavit dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P-2).

In terms of order dated 02.09.2022 of this Court, learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gidderbaha has submitted his report dated

17.11.2022. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-

"6. The point wise report as called is as follows:- i. Two persons namely Jaswinder Singh @ Khosa and Manveer Singh @ Mani are arrayed as accused in the present FIR, who are the petitioners in the

1 of 5

petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court and they both are the party to the compromise.

ii. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, none of the accused has been declared proclaimed offender.

iii. None of the accused is involved in any other criminal case.

iv. In the given circumstances, I am satisfied that compromise has been effected between complainant Rupinder Singh, victim Narinder Kaur @ Narinderpal Kaur and accused persons amicably, with their free consent, without any pressure and the same appears to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence and they got their statements recorded before the Court voluntarily and without any pressure."

Statement of Investigating Officer was recorded by Trial Court

and said statement is part of report dated 17.11.2022 submitted by learned

Trial Court.

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:

2 of 5

"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 the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.

13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings

3 of 5

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 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

4 of 5

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 conti nuing 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. 0138, dated

28.06.2020, under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC (later on added

Section 354 of IPC and Section 30 of Arms Act), and all other