Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kewaljit Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 January, 2023
CRM-M- 10983 of 2020 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
205 CRM-M- 10983 of 2020(O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.1.2023
Kewaljit Singh and another
---Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another
---Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. A.P.Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Punjab
Mr. H.S.Deol, Advocate
for respondent No. 2
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners, through instant petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C., are seeking quashing of FIR No. 149 dated 16.12.2017,
under Sections 498A- 406, 420, 376 and 511 IPC, registered at Police
Station Chohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
On 24.5.2022, following order was passed:-
"After hearing counsel for the private parties, this
Court is of the view that there is a possibility of
amicable settlement between the parties, for which
1 of 6
purpose, parties to the present petition including
husband of the complainant-respondent No.2 are
directed to appear before the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this Court on 02.06.2022 at
10.00 a.m.
List on 02.11.2022, to await the report of
learned Mediator.
Interim order to continue till the next date ."
As per report dated 19.9.2022 of Mediator, Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this Court, the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and settlement/agreement has been reduced in writing.
Learned State counsel and counsel for the complainant
submit that they have no objection if present petition is allowed and
FIR is quashed qua the petitioners.
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
2 of 6
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
3 of 6
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 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
4 of 6
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 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 Mediator,
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court that parties have
compromised their dispute, it transpires that contesting parties have
amicably resolved their issues, thus, no useful purpose would be served by
continuing the proceedings. 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
5 of 6
deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. FIR No. 149 dated
16.12.2017, under Sections 498A- 406, 420, 376 and 511 IPC, registered at
Police Station Chohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
18.1.2023
paramjit
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
