Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasvir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 January, 2023
CRM-M-50229-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116 CRM-M-50229-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.01.2023
Jasvir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Gaurav Gogna, Advocate the petitioner-applicant
Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Punjab
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
CRM-627-2023
Application for placing on record judgment and decree dated
18.10.2022 (Annexure P-11) passed by Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Ludhiana, statement of second motion of respondent No.2
(Annexure P-12) and statement of second motion of petitioner
(Annexure P-13), is allowed.
CRM-M-50229-2022
The petitioners through instant petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C, on the basis of Compromise Deed dated 31.07.2021 (Annexure
P-2), is seeking quashing of FIR No.2 dated 02.01.2021 (Annexure P-1)
under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station
Women, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom.
1 of 6
CRM-M-50229-2022 (O&M) -2-
In terms of order dated 06.12.2022 of this Court, the
petitioner, through CRM-627-2023, has placed on record judgment and
decree dated 18.10.2022 (Annexure P-11), whereby Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, has dissolved the marriage of the
petitioner and respondent No.2 by mutual consent. The relevant extracts
of the said judgment are as below:-
"10. Both the parties undertake not to file any
litigation against each other in future arising out of the
marriage. The petitioner No.1 undertakes to withdraw the
petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C filed against petitioner
No.2. The petitioner No.1 has lodged one FIR against
petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 undertakes to make
statement in favour of the petitioner No.2 before the
concerned court for quashing of the FIR.
11. The petitioner No.2 has filed a petition under
Section 9 of the HMA against the petitioner No.1 and
undertakes to withdraw the said petition. Hence, this
petition."
Learned State counsel would submit that respondent-State
has no objection, if the present FIR and subsequent proceedings are
quashed.
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
2 of 6
CRM-M-50229-2022 (O&M) -3-
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 320 Cr.P.C, which is the
exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent
ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.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 320 Cr.P.C. is not an
embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High
Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High
Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances
of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482
Cr.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
3 of 6
CRM-M-50229-2022 (O&M) -4-
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).
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
4 of 6
CRM-M-50229-2022 (O&M) -5-
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, statement of
complainant before Family Court, decree of divorce 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. The alleged offences are of pre-
dominantly private in nature and no moral turpitude or interest of public
at large is involved. There appears to be no chance of conviction, thus,
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 and in view of
order dated 18.10.2022 (Annexure P-11), whereby marriage of the
petitioner and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by mutual consent,
the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed.
FIR No.2 dated 02.01.2021 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406 and 498-
A of IPC, registered at Police Station Women, Police Commissionerate,
5 of 6
CRM-M-50229-2022 (O&M) -6-
Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby
quashed qua the petitioner.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
11.01.2023
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
