Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 July, 2023
2023:PHHC:097063
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
251-a
CRM-M-11039-2023
DATE OF DECISION : 28th JULY, 2023
Jagtar Singh and another
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
****
Present : Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab assisted by ASI
Nirmal Singh.
Mr. A.S. Barnala, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3.
****
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed for quashing of complaint and police
investigation dated 06.05.2020 (Annexure P-1) on the basis of which
Rapat No.23 has been added and the challan under Sections 323, 427, 34
of IPC in FIR No.59 dated 11.05.2020, registered under Sections 341,
323, 506, 148, 149 and 201 of IPC at Police Station Dhanaula, District
Barnala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis
of compromise (Annexure P-4).
2. Vide order dated 03.03.2023, the parties were directed to
appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their
statements recorded; as to the genuineness of the compromise. In
compliance thereof, report of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, dated
27.03.2023, has been received, wherein, it has been noticed that the matter
Ankur Goyal
2023.08.01 18:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-11039-2023 2023:PHHC:097063
has been compromised between the parties with their free consent and
without any coercion or undue influence from any quarter.
3. The ultimate aim, objective and goal of a legal system is to
reconcile the social conflicts. Law is required only to ensure that people
do not have to fight with each other just to protect their right to property,
right to life and liberty and other rights secured to them by the legal
system. The civil disputes are the conflicts between two parties, having
lesser overtones for the social order, social harmony or the society as
such. Hence absolute freedom is given to the parties to settle their
disputes by compromises, of course, coming with certain legal
consequences as well. However, the criminal disputes do not necessarily
restrict themselves to only two parties to the dispute in terms of their
scope, consequences and effect. The criminal acts tend to cast their effect
and consequences even upon the society at large. Therefore, the law
prescribes punishment, severe punishments and the extreme punishments,
including death penalty for criminal acts.
4. However more often then not the civil disputes or inter-se
conflicts of two parties transforms themselves into criminal aspect.
Therefore, the legal system plays empire to resolve the conflict between
two parties; with the added task of ensuring that the adverse impact of
dispute qua society at large is minimized. But still the core idea is to
resolve the conflict between two sides by putting it to rest. Therefore,
even the criminal law is required to give due regard to the wishes of the
parties to dispute. Recognizing this principle only, the Indian legal
System also provides for recognizing the compromise between two sides
of a criminal dispute. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is an express provision in this
Ankur Goyal
2023.08.01 18:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-11039-2023 2023:PHHC:097063
regard. This section not only provides for compounding during the trial,
but permits compounding even at appellate or revisional stage. However
by its very nature and scope, Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole
repository; wherein the recognition to a compromise between the parties
have; necessarily; to be confined. This section relates only to the offences
prescribed under the Indian Penal Code. There are a lot more offences
prescribed outside IPC. Even to the offences existing in the IPC new
dimensions are added from time to time, making the existing offences to
be lighter or stringent and even new modalities of proof of offences are
being recognized in view of technological advancement. This
necessitates and requires the need for looking beyond Section 320
Cr.P.C. to recognize the compromise between the parties to dispute. But
to maintain the sanctity of the procedure prescribed for criminal trial; the
Trial Court cannot be permitted to travel beyond the scope prescribed
under that procedure. Hence the need for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.
by the High Court.
5. But, as observed above, the wishes of only parties to the
criminal dispute would not always be sufficient to terminate a criminal
trial in view of the patent, latent or subtle effect; their conduct would
have left qua the society at large. Therefore the offences committed by
persons involved in governance or administration for acquiring official
power or while exercising office power cannot be permitted to be
compromised. Likewise, even the offences involving only two private
persons, but reflecting depravity of character or involving causing
intentional loss of life or causing intentional loss of property by
extending imminent threat of loss of life; cannot be permitted to be
compromised. Except the abovementioned grave offences, there is every
Ankur Goyal
2023.08.01 18:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-11039-2023 2023:PHHC:097063
reason that all other offences should be permitted to be compromised by
the Court. Since the proof of offences before the Court, again would
involve the conduct of the parties to dispute, therefore if the Court does
not permit the same to be compromised then the parties would tend to
play tricks upon the Court to ensure the acquittal of accused by
subverting the administration of criminal justice. And it is never in the
interest of administration of criminal justice to force the citizen to learn
and adopt the tricks designed to be played upon Courts to subvert the
justice system. So it would always be in the interest of justice itself; that
the compromise between the parties is recognized and the citizen remain
moored and committed to the essentials of the system of administration
of justice, at least, qua those offences, which the interest of society does
not permit to be compromised.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has amply clarified the legal
position on recognizing compromising in the case of Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, and has
observed as under:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for compounding
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to
be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such
power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case and no category can be prescribed. However,
Ankur Goyal
2023.08.01 18:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-11039-2023 2023:PHHC:097063
before exercise of such power, the High Court must have
due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even
though the victim or victim's family and the offender have
settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature
and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and offender in relation to
the offences under special statutes like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any
basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for
the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising
from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or
such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature
and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, High Court may quash criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction
is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would
put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal case despite full and complete settlement and
compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court
must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the
interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding
or continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether
to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal
Ankur Goyal
2023.08.01 18:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-11039-2023 2023:PHHC:097063
case is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well
within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
7. The present case does not fall in anyone of the exceptions
envisaged above. Hence, in view of the report of Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Barnala, dated 27.03.2023 made in pursuance of the order dated
03.03.2023 passed by this Court, the Court feels that no useful purpose
would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. It will be in the
interest of justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is
accepted.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Complaint and
police investigation dated 06.05.2020 (Annexure P-1) on the basis of
which Rapat No.23 has been added and the challan under Sections 323,
427, 34 of IPC in FIR No.59 dated 11.05.2020, registered under Sections
341, 323, 506, 148, 149 and 201 of IPC at Police Station Dhanaula,
District Barnala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are
hereby quashed qua the present petitioners, on the basis of compromise
arrived at between the parties.
28th JULY, 2023 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
Ankur JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No
Whether Reportable: Yes No
Ankur Goyal
2023.08.01 18:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
