Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 18 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124207
CRA-S-1771-SB-2014 (O&M) and connected matters -1
227/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1771-SB-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision:18.09.2024
Jagjit Singh ...Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab and Anr. ...Respondents
(ii) CRA-S-2024-SB-2014 (O&M)
Amritpal Singh ...Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab and Anr. ...Respondents
(iii) CRA-S-2292-SB-2014 (O&M)
Gursewak Singh ...Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab and Anr. ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate
for the applicant/appellant(s) in all appeals.
Mr. Deepinder Singh Brar,Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the complainant.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. On oral request made by learned counsel for the appellant(s) the
main case is taken up today for hearing.
2. This order shall dispose off three criminal appeals i.e
CRA-S-1771-SB-2014 titled as "Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr",
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124207
CRA-S-1771-SB-2014 (O&M) and connected matters -2
CRA-S-2024-SB-2014 titled as "Amritpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
Anr"and CRA-S-2292-SB-2014 titled as "Gursewak Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and Anr" whereby the appellants had challenged the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 07.04.2014, passed by the Court of
Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, whereby the appellants were convicted for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 459,326,324 and 323 read
with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced as under:-
Offence Imprisonment In default of fine
U/s 459 read with SectionRI 07 years and Rs.5000/-RI 03 months each
34 of IPC as fine each
U/s 324 IPC RI 01 year and Rs.1000/-RI 01 month each
as fine each
U/s 323 IPC RI 06 months andRI 15 days each
Rs.500/- as fine each
U/s 506 IPC RI 02 years and Rs.2000/-RI 02 months each
as fine each
3. During the pendency of the appeals before this Court, the
appellants in the present appeals had filed three miscellaneous applications
i.e CRM-917-2023 in criminal appeal No. CRA-S-1771-SB-2014,
CRM-924-2023 in criminal appeal No. CRA-S-2024-SB-2014 and
CRM-543-2023 in criminal appeal No. CRA-S-2292-SB-2014 with a prayer
to compound the offences in the present case and to set aside the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 07.04.2014, passed by the Court of
Sessions Judge, Bhatinda on the basis of compromise between the parties.
4. Vide order dated 01.05.2023, the appeals were heard by this Court
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124207
CRA-S-1771-SB-2014 (O&M) and connected matters -3
and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) as well as the
complainant jointly stated that they had entered into a compromise in these
appeals. Consequently, this Court had directed the parties to appear before the
Trial Court/Area Magistrate for getting their statements recorded with regard to
the compromise in the present case.
5. In compliance of the order dated 01.05.2023 passed by this Court,
a report has been received from the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, District Bhatinda and as per the report submitted
the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, District
Bhatinda, the compromise between the parties was genuine, voluntary and
without any coercion or undue influence. Even, the Court had recorded the
statements of all three appellants in these three appeals. The Court had also
recorded the statement of respondent No.2, Darshan Singh before submitting a
report to this Court and he had clearly stated that, he had no objection if the FIR
in the present case and subsequent proceedings are quashed on the basis of
compromise in the present case.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) argued that during the
pendency of the criminal appeals, the parties had entered into a compromise
with the intervention of the respectables of the society, vide the compromise
deed (Annexure A-1). It was submitted that the appellants and the
complainant/respondent No.2 are close relatives as well as neighbourers. The
wife of the complainant is first cousin of Gursewak Singh and Amritpal Singh,
both appellants. Even the complainant is son-in-law of brother of Jagjit Singh,
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124207
CRA-S-1771-SB-2014 (O&M) and connected matters -4
appellant. In fact, the dispute arose due to distribution of ancestral land, which
took an ugly turn and ended up in the present incident. However, after
conviction, better sense prevailed between the parties being the close relatives
and they had entered into a compromise deed (Annexure A-1). Learned counsel
for the appellant (s), also relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of "Ramgopal and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh" reported as 2021 (4) RCR (Crl) Page 322 and the relevant extract of
the said judgment has been reproduced below:-
"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320
Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise
between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable'
within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power
enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested
in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be
invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude
ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing
criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of
the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of
the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between
the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused
persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported
offence and/or other relevant considerations.
20.Having appraised the afore-stated para-meters and weighing
upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals
before us, we are inclined to invoke powers under Article 142
and quash the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside
the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons
that-
Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be
categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal
proceedings of private nature;
Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the
Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their
mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124207
CRA-S-1771-SB-2014 (O&M) and connected matters -5
nature that quashing of which would override public interest;
Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is
immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been
concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand dismissed;
Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion
or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have burned their
differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute(s);
Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back
in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on
record to evince that either before or after the purported
compromise, any untoward incident transpired between the
parties;
Sixthly, since the Appellants and the complainant(s) are
residents of the same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the
quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony,
and fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget
and forgive any ill- will and have no vengeance against each
other, and conclusion:
Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal justice system
would remain un-effected on acceptarice of the amicable
settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the
Appellants, more so looking at their present age.
Conclusion:
Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012
21.Consequently, and for the reasons stated above, read with the
settlement dated 13th September 2006, we find it appropriate to
invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and
quash the criminal proceedings in the aforesaid case. As a
sequel thereto, all offences emanating out of the FIR leading to
Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 stand annulled, and the
judgment and orders passed by the trial court, appellate court
and the High Court are set aside. Resultantly, the Appellants
shall be deemed to have been acquitted of the charged offences
for all. intents and purposes."
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also
submits that he has no objection, in case the FIR No. 65 dated 29.07.2009,
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124207
CRA-S-1771-SB-2014 (O&M) and connected matters -6
under Sections 459,326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, Police
Station Raman, District Bhatinda and impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 07.04.2014, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge,
Bhatinda are set aside by this Court and the appellants are ordered to be
acquitted on the basis of compromise.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
carefully.
9. The only question, which arises for consideration before this Court
is whether this Court can quash the instant FIR along with the judgment of
conviction/sentence, while exercising the inherent powers provided under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. Section 482 Cr.P.C., which deals with inherent power of
the High Court reads as under:-
"482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this
Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the
High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect
to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of
any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
10. From the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is apparent
that the offences, which are non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C
cannot be compounded by a Criminal Court, However, Section 320 Cr.P.C is
not an embargo against invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and for justifiable reasons can exercise its inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any court,
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124207
CRA-S-1771-SB-2014 (O&M) and connected matters -7
or to secure the end of justice. Thus, the High Court can quash such
proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even
if the offences are non-compoundable. In so far as power of quashing under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is guided by the material on record as to
whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, even though
the ultimate consequence may be acquittal of the accused. The Division Bench
of this Court in "Sube Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another,
CRM-M-38140-2011, decided on 09.04.2013" has observed that
non-acceptance of the compromise would also lead to denial of complete
justice, which is the very essence of our justice delivery system. Since, there is
no statutory embargo against invoking of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
after conviction of an accused by the trial court and during the pendency of
appeal against such conviction, the High Court could invoke the inherent
jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings subject to certain safeguards.
11. In the present case also, the parties have amicably resolved all their
disputes and they appeared before the Illqua Magistrate/Area Magistrate and
got their statements recorded. Even, the Trial Court has recorded the
satisfaction that the compromise between the parties is genuine and voluntary.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
07.04.2014, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhatinda are liable to be set
aside.
13. As a consequence, the present appeal(s) are allowed and the
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124207
CRA-S-1771-SB-2014 (O&M) and connected matters -8
appellants are ordered to be acquitted of the charge.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of, accordingly.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
18.09.2024 JUDGE
hitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
