Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Sardana vs State Of Haryana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 20431 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Sardana vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 November, 2023

Author: Rajbir Sehrawat

Bench: Rajbir Sehrawat

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150247




CRR No.2198 of 2023 (O&M)                             2023:PHHC:150247



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

242
                                    CRR No.2198 of 2023 (O&M)
                       DATE OF DECISION: 24th NOVEMBER, 2023


Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Sardana

                                                               .... Petitioner
                                   Versus
State of Haryana and another
                                                            .... Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT


Present :   Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for
            Ms. Shelja Sharma, Advocate,
            for respondent No.2.

                                  ****

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed against the order dated

16.09.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad in

criminal appeal No.75 of 2022 titled as Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Versus

Satish Kumar and impugned judgment and order of sentence dated

24.05.2022 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ratia, District

Fatehabad, vide which the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 for six months and to pay the double

of cheque amount as compensation in terms of Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. to

the complainant within one month.

                               1 of 7

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150247




CRR No.2198 of 2023 (O&M)                             2023:PHHC:150247

2. Vide order dated 28.09.2023, 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 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ratia

dated 10.10.2023, 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 offender.

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

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150247

CRR No.2198 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:150247

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 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

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150247

CRR No.2198 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:150247

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

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

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150247

CRR No.2198 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:150247

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, 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

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150247

CRR No.2198 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:150247

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 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 Sub Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Ratia dated 10.10.2023 made in pursuance of the order dated

28.09.2023 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,

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150247

CRR No.2198 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:150247

has held that quashing of complaint and proceedings can be permitted

even after conviction.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The complaint

No.NACT-327-2018 filed under Section 138 of NI Act along with the

judgment and order of sentence dated 24.05.2022 passed by the Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ratia, District Fatehabad, as well as, order

dated 16.09.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad

and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed

qua the petitioner. The petitioner is ordered to be acquitted of the charges

levelled against him.

24th NOVEMBER, 2023                            (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
'sandeep'                                            JUDGE


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




                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150247

                               7 of 7