Pinky And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 779 P&H

CRM-M-7318-2020                                                       -1-

270
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M-7318-2020
                                        Date of Decision:16.01.2023

PINKY AND OTHERS                                          ......... Petitioners
                                    Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS                                ......... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab
            assisted by ASI Dharmender Singh.

            Mr. Pardeep Dhull, Advocate
            for the complainant.

           ****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing

of DDR No.019 dated 25.08.2018 under Sections 323, 452, 379, 120B

and 34 of IPC, Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-2)

in cross case of FIR No. 243, dated 24.08.2018, under Sections 328, 354

and 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar,

(Annexure P-1), and all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom, on the basis of compromise/ affidavit dated 27.12.2019

(Annexure P-3).

In terms of order dated 19.02.2020 of this Court, learned

Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur has submitted his report

dated 04.11.2022. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-

"Notice to Investigating Officer was also issued, upon which, I0 ASI Subhash Chander No. 698, P. S.

1 of 6

Phillaur, District Jalandhar (Rural) has appeared before the court and got recorded his statement on 22.09.2022. After having considered the statements of both the parties points vise report is submitted as under:-

1. As per the statement of I.0. ASI Subhash Chander in the present case there are six accused, namely, Meeto (complainant in Cross-case) Binder @ Jaswinder Kaur, Kashturi Lal, Rajijo @ Rajwinder Kaur, Deep @Rajdeep Kaur, Tarsem Nath are involved. Except them, no any person has been arrayed as accused in the present case.

2. In the present case, no accused is declared as Proclaimed Offender.

3. In the present case challan has not presented so far.

4. In view of statements of both the parties compromise arrived between them appears to be bona fide and is not result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The compromise effected between the parties appears to be genuine and valid.

It is further submitted that the statements of the parties which were recorded by the undersigned and copies of their ID proofs statement of IO, etc. are being sent to the Hon'ble High Court along with this report."

Statement of Investigating Officer was recorded by Trial

Court and said statement is part of report dated 04.11.2022 submitted by

learned Trial Court.

Learned State counsel on instruction from ASI Dharmender

Singh. and learned counsel for the complainant submitted that they have

no objection if DDR and consequent proceedings in view of compromise

2 of 6

are quashed.

Learned State counsel submits that on 09.04.2021

cancellation report was filed before learned Trial Court.

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 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

3 of 6

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

4 of 6

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

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, the continuance of the proceedings would just waste

5 of 6

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.

DDR No.019 dated 25.08.2018 under Sections 323, 452,

379, 120B and 34 of IPC, Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar

(Annexure P-2) in cross case of FIR No. 243, dated 24.08.2018, under

Sections 328, 354 and 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Phillaur,

District Jalandhar, (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential

proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).

                                               ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                      JUDGE
16.01.2023
Ali


                   Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No
                      Whether Reportable        Yes/No




                                6 of 6