Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 21 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:124358
CRM-M No.24351 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:124358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
125
CRM-39333 and 39334-2023 in/and
CRM-M No.24351 of 2023 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 21st SEPTEMBER, 2023
Gurdeep Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present : Mr. Raghav Goyal Chandiwala, Advocate,
for the applicant-petitioner.
****
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)
CRM-39333 & 39334-2024
These are applications for preponing the date of hearing in the
main case and for adding the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 IPC
added later on 19.01.2023 in addition to Sections 406, 420 and 120-B
IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act in head note and prayer clause of
the main petition.
Notice in the applications.
Mr. Sandeep, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent/State and Mr. Amrit S.Kang, Advocate
for Mr. Matinder Singh Brar, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.2/complainant. They submit that they have no objection, if
the applications are allowed.
For the reasons mentioned in the applications and in view of
no objections given by the counsel opposite, the applications are allowed.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:124358
CRM-M No.24351 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:124358
Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC are added in the head note and prayer clause
of the main petition and the main case is preponed and taken up for hearing
today itself. Registry to do necessary correction/addition in the head note
and prayer clause of the main petition.
Main Case
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.62 dated 28.03.2022
registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code
(for short 'the IPC'), Section 24 of Immigration Act (Sections 465, 468
and 471 IPC added later on) at Police Station Phase-I, SAS Nagar,
Mohali and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis
of compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. Vide order dated 16.05.2023, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali dated
12.07.2023, 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. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Anita Maria Dias
and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2018 (1) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 983, to contend that even the offence under Sections 420 and
471 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:124358
CRM-M No.24351 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:124358
4. 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.
5. 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 section not only provides for compounding during the trial,
but permits compounding even at appellate or revisional stage. However
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:124358
CRM-M No.24351 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:124358
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.
6. 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 mentioned grave offences, there is
every reason that all other offences should be permitted to be
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:124358
CRM-M No.24351 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:124358
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.
7. 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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:124358
CRM-M No.24351 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:124358
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 compromise with the victim. In other
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:124358
CRM-M No.24351 of 2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:124358
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."
8. The present case does not fall in anyone of the exceptions
envisaged above. Hence, in view of the report of Chief Judicial
Magistrate Mohali dated 12.07.2023 made in pursuance of the order
dated 16.05.2023 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.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.62
dated 28.03.2022 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the
IPC, Section 24 of Immigration Act (Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC
added later on) at Police Station Phase-I, SAS Nagar, Mohali and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the
present petitioner on the basis of compromise arrived at between the
parties.
21st SEPTEMBER, 2023 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
'sandeep' JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No
Whether Reportable: Yes No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:124358
7 of 7
