Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramandeep @ Amandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 January, 2023
CRM-M-18887-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
261 CRM-M-18887-2022
Date of Decision: 12.01.2023
Ramandeep @ Amandeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab
Ms. Taanvi Dhull, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioners through instant petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C, on the basis of Compromise dated 06.12.2021 (Annexure P-2),
are is seeking quashing of FIR No.83 dated 19.08.2011 (Annexure P-1)
under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC registered at Police Station Division
No.4, District Ludhiana, and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that
petitioner and victim i.e. daughter of the complainant are staying
together. They solemnized marriage in the year 2011 and they are having
two children from this wedlock.
In terms of order dated 15.09.2022 of this Court, Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana, has submitted her report dated
13.12.2022. The relevant extracts of the report are as below:-
1 of 6
"1) As per the information furnished by HC
Palwinder Singh, only one person namely Ramandeep @
Amandeep Singh was arrayed as accused in the FIR.
Hence, besides the present accused/petitioner mentioned
in the petition, there is no other accused in the FIR.
2) As per the statement of HC Palwinder Singh, no
P.O proceeding is pending against the accused. It is
further informed by him that no other case is pending
against the accused, except the present case. It has
further been informed by HC Palwinder Singh that
earlier accused was declared as proclaimed offender in
this case vide order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the
Court of Ms. Kiran Jyoti, Ld. JMIC, Ludhiana and
thereafter, vide order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the
Court of Jagdeep Kaur Virk Ld. ASJ, Ludhiana, the
accused was granted concession of bail.
3) From the statement so suffered by both the
parties, i.e. the complainant namely Jasvir Kaur w/o
Savinder Singh along with Ranjit Kaur W/o Ramandeep
Amandeep Singh and present accused namely
Ramandeep @ Amandeep Singh S/o Vijay Kumar, it
appears that they have, in fact, entered into a
compromise, which is voluntary in nature and is free
from any coercion, pressure or threat."
Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent
Nos.2 & 3 would submit that they have 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
2 of 6
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 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.
3 of 6
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
4 of 6
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
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, 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, 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, the present
petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed. FIR No.83
dated 19.08.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC
5 of 6
registered at Police Station Division No.4, District Ludhiana, and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the
petitioner.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
12.01.2023
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
