Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gautam Nagar vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 23 January, 2023
CRM-M-35920-2022 -1-
288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-35920-2022
Date of Decision:23.01.2023
GAUTAM NAGAR ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Vishal Goel,, Advocatefor the petitioner.
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No.63, dated 20.04.2020, under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC,
registered at Police Station Urban Estate, District Patiala, (Annexure P-1),
and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise/ affidavit dated 05.10.2020 (Annexure P-2).
Status report by way of affidavit dated 21.01.2023 of DSP,
City-2, District Patiala filed on behalf of respondent No.1 State. The same is
taken on record.
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.
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that petitioner and
respondent No.2 have solemnized marriage and they are putting on the
same floor. They are further blessed with a child.
1 of 4
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 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
2 of 4
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 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).
3 of 4
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 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.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the present petition
deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed.
FIR No.63, dated 20.04.2020, under Sections 376 and 506 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, District Patiala, (Annexure
P-1), and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed
qua the petitioner(s).
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
23.01.2023
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
