The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that powers vested in High Court under Section 482 of CrPC is wide enough to quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara has observed that High Court can end proceedings in cases not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC.
The petitioner herein had lodged the complaints for an alleged fraud wherein he claimed that the Travel Agent defrauded him on the pretext of sending him Canada on work permit. Under that garb, he took Rs.3,50,000/- and he even kept his passport. He turned out conman and kept on befooling him on one pretext of the other.
The Travel Agent was charged under S.420 of IPC and S.13 of Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2013, where the former part of the offence was compoundable under S.320 of CrPC but the latter half was not compoundable. The petitioner therefore pleaded that since the parties involved had already reached a compromise voluntarily, the FIR against the petitioner may be quashed.
The Court noted at the outset that statements of the parties have been recorded and the compromise effected between the parties is voluntary and without any pressure of their free will.
The Court then went into detail, analysing legal precedents to ascertain if High Court jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC encompasses the power to quash the FIR and proceedings even if the offence is non-compoundable.
It referred to Gold Quest International Private Limited Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2014 Latest Caselaw 562 SC, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors Vs. State of Gujarat and ANR, 2017 Latest Caselaw 714 SC, Ramgopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 Latest Caselaw 446 SC and concluded that High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere in this present kind of matter. Given the entirety of the case and judicial precedents, the Court was of the considered opinion that the continuation of these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever.
The Court further mentioned SC Ruling in Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Kaushalya Sawhney, 1979 Latest Caselaw 77 SC wherein the Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.
Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 Latest Caselaw 824 SC wherein the Court ruled that the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stands vitiated.
The Cour noted that because of the compromise, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked to quash the proceedings in the present case.
Read Order Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
