Kunal Sobti And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 589 P&H

CRM-M-11534-2022                                                          -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

260                                             CRM-M-11534-2022
                                                Date of Decision: 12.01.2023
Kunal Sobti and Others                                           ...Petitioners
                                     Versus

State of Haryana and Another                                    ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:-   Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners
            Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana
            Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2
            ***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioners through instant petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C, on the basis of Compromise Deed dated 13.07.2021 (Annexure

P-2), are seeking quashing of FIR No.328 dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure

P-1) under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 & 34 of IPC registered at

Police Station City Sector 32/33, Karnal, District Karnal, and all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned counsels for the petitioners and private respondent

are ad-idem that matter has been compromised between the parties and

Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Karnal, vide order dated

30.07.2022 has ordered to dissolve the marriage between the parties. The

decree of divorce has been passed by mutual consent.

Learned State counsel submits that cancellation report stands

filed before Competent Court on 17.11.2022 and respondent-State has no

objection, if the present FIR and subsequent proceedings are quashed.

1 of 5

Learned counsel for private respondent also submits that he

has no objection if the present FIR and subsequent proceedings are

quashed, however, petitioners may be directed not to interfere in the life

of respondent No.2 in future.

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 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

2 of 5

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 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, 3 of 5

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 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, order dated

30.07.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Karnal,

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.

4 of 5

In view of above facts and circumstances, the present

petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed. FIR No.328

dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506

& 34 of IPC registered at Police Station City Sector 32/33, Karnal,

District Karnal, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are

hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

It is made clear that in case there is any ill-deed on the part

of the petitioners, respondent No.2-complainant would be at liberty to

approach the Competent Authority.

                                                   (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
                                                          JUDGE
12.01.2023
Mohit Kumar
              Whether speaking/reasoned            Yes/No
              Whether reportable                   Yes/No




                                   5 of 5