Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avinash Kauldhar vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 27 January, 2023
CRM-M-437-2023 -1-
244 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-437-2023
Date of Decision:27.01.2023
AVINASH KAULDHAR ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR ....... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Arti Kaur, 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.202
dated 01.11.2018 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Adampur,
District Jalandhar Rural, under Sections 420 and 498A of IPC, 1860 as
well as GD (Annexure P-2) vide which offence under Section 376 of IPC
was added later on, and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
Short reply by way of Affidavit dated 27.01.2023 of DSP,
Sub Division Adampur, District Jalandhar Rural filed on behalf of
respondent No.1-Staten is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the
same at the appropriate place.
In terms of orders of this Court, learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Jalandhar has submitted his report. It inter alia confirms that all
the parties and Investigating Officer appeared before the Court and
1 of 5
tendered their statements qua compromise arrived at between the parties;
the compromise is voluntary, genuine and without any coercion; no
accused is a proclaimed offender; all the accused as well complainant
have entered into compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 376
of IPC was added against husband of the complainant on the oral
direction of HMJ R.K. Garg (retd.) Chairman NRI Commission,
Chandigarh.
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.
The parties are ad idem that petitioner and complainant are
staying in abroad and they are going to file petition under Section 13B of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual
consent.
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 5
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
involving non-heinous offences or where the offences
3 of 5
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
4 of 5
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.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the present
petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed.
FIR No.202 dated 01.11.2018 (Annexure P-1), registered at
Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar Rural, under Sections 420
and 498A of IPC, 1860 as well as GD (Annexure P-2) vide which
offence under Section 376 of IPC was added later on, and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the
petitioner(s).
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
27.01.2023
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
