Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chander Shekhar Dharni vs State Of Haryana on 16 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145995
-1-
CRR-4383-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
109 CRM-35909-2023 and
CRM-47223-2023 in/and
CRR-4383-2017 (O & M)
Date of decision: 16.11.2023
CHANDER SHEKHAR DHARNI
...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present:- Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaglan, Advocate,
for the applicant-petitioner.
****
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)
CRM-47223-2023
This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for an early
hearing of the main revision.
Notice in the application.
On the asking of this Court, Mr. Mr. Krishan Kumar Chahal,
Addl. A. G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Pradeep Chhoker, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.2.
Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2
submit that they have no objection, if the present application is allowed.
In view of the grounds mentioned in the application and 'No
Objection' given by the counsel opposite, the present application is
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145995
CRR-4383-2017
allowed. The main revision as well as applications bearing Nos.35903-
2023 and 35909-2023, are preponed to today itself and taken on Board for
hearing.
CRM-35909-2023 in/and
CRR-4383-2017
1. The present revision has been filed challenging the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2017 passed by the Addl.
Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the
judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2014 and order of sentence dated
19.02.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, in FIR
No.222 dated 12.06.2003, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473,
474, 500 and 34 IPC, has been partly dismissed, thereby upholding the
conviction of the petitioner under Section 500 IPC, to the sentence already
undergone by him.
2. During pendency of the present petition, the matter has been
compromised between the parties.
3. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 320(6)
Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 IPC for compounding the offence on the
basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
4. Vide order dated 14.09.2023, 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, Panipat, dated
07.10.2023, has been received, wherein, it has been noticed that the parties
have settled the dispute amicably without any undue influence, coercion or
pressure and none of the accused have been declared as proclaimed
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145995
CRR-4383-2017
offender.
5. 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.
6. 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 regard. This
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145995
CRR-4383-2017
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.
7. 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 above-
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145995
CRR-4383-2017
mentioned grave offences, there is every 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.
8. 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
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145995
CRR-4383-2017
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, 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
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145995
CRR-4383-2017
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 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."
9. The present case does not fall in anyone of the exceptions
envisaged above. Hence, in view of the report of Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Panipat, dated 07.10.2023, made in pursuance of the order dated
14.09.2023 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. Still
further a Full Bench judgment of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others
vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, has held that quashing
of complaint and proceedings can be permitted even after conviction.
9. Accordingly, the application CRM-35909-2023 and the
present revision are allowed. FIR No.222 dated 12.06.2023, registered
under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474 and 500 read with
Section 34 IPC, and the judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2014 and order
of sentence dated 19.02.2014 passed by the trial Court, as well as, the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2017 passed by
the Appellate Court qua Section 500 IPC, all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the present petitioner, on the
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145995
CRR-4383-2017
basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. The petitioner is
ordered to be acquitted of the charge(s) levelled against him.
16.11.2023 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145995
8 of 8
