Nishan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 15587 P&H

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120091




                                                               2023:PHHC:120091

CRM-M-7660-2016 (O&M)                                                          -1-


246         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                                   CRM-M-7660-2016 (O&M)
                                                   Date of Decision: 12.09.2023

Nishan Singh and others                                        ...... Petitioners

                                Versus

State of Punjab and others                                     ......... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT

Present :   Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab,
            for respondent No.1-State.

            None for respondents No.2 and 3.
                                           *****
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed for quashing of the FIR No.34 dated 17.05.2014,

registered under Sections 382 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

short 'the IPC') at Police Station Tibber Tehsil and District Gurdaspur; and

for quashing/setting aside of the judgment of conviction and order of

quantum of sentence dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur; and all other consequential proceedings

arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 22.02.2016 arrived at

between the parties.

2. Vide order dated 01.02.2018, the parties were directed to appear

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120091

2023:PHHC:120091

CRM-M-7660-2016 (O&M) -2-

before the learned Appellate Court/concerned Court, for getting their

statements recorded; as to the genuineness of the compromise. In

compliance thereof, report of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur,

dated 15.02.2018, has been received, wherein, it has been noticed that the

parties have settled their 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

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120091

2023:PHHC:120091

CRM-M-7660-2016 (O&M) -3-

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 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 recognised in view of technological advancement. This

necessitates and requires the need for looking beyond Section 320 Cr.P.C. to

recognise 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

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120091

2023:PHHC:120091

CRM-M-7660-2016 (O&M) -4-

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-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.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has amply clarified the legal

position on recognizing compromising in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120091

2023:PHHC:120091

CRM-M-7660-2016 (O&M) -5-

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, 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.

                                5 of 7

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120091




                                                            2023:PHHC:120091

CRM-M-7660-2016 (O&M)                                                      -6-

But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly 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 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 the Additional Sessions

Judge, Gurdaspur, dated 15.02.2018, made in pursuance of the order dated

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120091

2023:PHHC:120091

CRM-M-7660-2016 (O&M) -7-

01.02.2018 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. FIR No.34 dated

17.05.2014, registered under Sections 382 and 34 of the IPC at Police

Station Tibber Tehsil and District Gurdaspur; the judgment of conviction

and order of quantum of sentence dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur; and all other consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the present

petitioners on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. The

petitioners are ordered to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

                                                      (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
                                                            JUDGE
12.09.2023
adhikari
                   Whether speaking/reasoned                  Yes/No
                   Whether Reportable                         Yes/No




                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:120091

                                   7 of 7