Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jaswinder Kaur vs Union Territory, Chandigarh And ... on 24 January, 2023

CRM-M-48860-2021                                                 -1-

292    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M-48860-2021
                                        Date of Decision:24.01.2023


JASWINDER KAUR                                            ......... Petitioner

                                    Versus

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER
                                    ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :    Mr. Deepak Kundu, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Anupam Bansal, Addl. PP, U.T, Chandigarh.

             Mr. Karanveer Singh, Advocate for
             Mr. Piyush Khanna, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

                   ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C., on the basis of compromise, is seeking quashing of FIR

No.0066, dated 07.10.2020, under Sections 509 of IPC and Sections

66(c) and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police

Station Sector 49 Chandigarh, (Annexure P-1), and all other

consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

In terms of orders of this Court, learned Judicial Magistrate

1st Class, Chandigarh has submitted his report. It confirms that all the

parties and Investigating Officer appeared before the Court and tendered

their statements qua compromise arrived at between the parties. The

compromise is voluntary, genuine and without any coercion. No

1 of 5

accused is a proclaimed offender. All the accused as well complainant

have entered into compromise.

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 U.T. Chandigarh, as their usual

practice, submits that alleged offence is non-compoundable, thus, Court

should not allow present petition.

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

2 of 5

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 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

3 of 5

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 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

4 of 5

contesting parties have amicably resolved their issue, thus, no useful

purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. The petitioner is

a 57 years old lady, thus, she deserves more leniency. 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.0066, dated 07.10.2020, under Sections 509 of IPC