Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sagar Kanda And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 20 January, 2023
CRM-M-47385-2021 -1-
251 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-47385-2021
Date of Decision:20.01.2023
SAGAR KANDA AND ORS ......... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
of FIR No.86, dated 23.05.2017, under Sections 376, 376D, 494, 495,
328, 323, 120B and 420 of IPC (later on added Sections 11 and 12 of SC
& ST Act, 1989), registered at Police Station City South Moga, District
Moga, (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise/ affidavit dated 01.11.2021
(Annexure P-6).
In terms of order dated 05.01.2023 of this Court, learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Moga has submitted his report
dated 11.01.2023. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-
"4. In view of order dated 05.01.2023 passed by
Hon'ble High Court, para-wise report is submitted as
under:-
(i) In reply to para No.1 it is submitted that as per
statement of complainant/prosecutrix compromise is
1 of 6
voluntary and genuine.
(ii) Three accused have been nominated in the
FIR/police report. One more accused namely Raj
Kumar Kanda (@ Raja was summoned under Section
319 Cr.P.C.
(iii) All the accused, except Rajinder Kumar Kanda,
who has since expired, have entered into compromise.
(iv) As per statement of prosecutrix, there is no
partial compromise and same is full fledged
compromise.
(v) Trail against accused Sagar Kanda, Madhu @
Kulvir Kaur and Rajinder Kumar Kanda was at the
stage of defence evidence. Accused Raj Kumar Kanda
@ Raja was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
and charge were re-framed. The case was adjourned
for prosecution evidence after appearance of accused
Raj Kumar. Now the case is fixed for prosecution
evidence.
(vi) Accused Sagar Kanda, Madhu @ Kuljit Kaur
and Raj Kumar are on bail and appearing before the
Court. Accused Rajinder Kanda has expired and
proceedings against him have been abated.
(vii) As per Certificate filed with report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C., no other proceeding is pending
against the accused/petitioners."
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.
2 of 6
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that petitioner
and complainant are staying together and they have no grievance against
each other.
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 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
3 of 6
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 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
4 of 6
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, 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 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.
5 of 6
In view of above facts and circumstances, the present
petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed.
FIR No.86, dated 23.05.2017, under Sections 376, 376D,
494, 495, 328, 323, 120B and 420 of IPC (later on added Sections 11 and
12 of SC & ST Act, 1989), registered at Police Station City South Moga,
District Moga, (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential proceedings
arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
20.01.2023
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
