Harwinder Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And Others



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 28936 of 2021 Reserved on 06.12.2021 Pronounced on: 05.01.2022 Harwinder Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CRM-M No. 29014 of 2021 Harbhajan Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-28936-2021 and for respondents No.2 and 3 in CRM-M-29014-2021 Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vikasdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-29014-2021 and for respondents No.2 and 3 in CRM-M-28936-2021 *** ANOOP CHITKARA J.

DDR No. Dated Police Station Sections 28.09.2020 Kabirpur, District Kapurthala 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC, 1860 IN/AND FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 28.09.2020 Kabirpur (Ahlikalan) District Kaputhala 452/324/323/148/149 IPC, 1860 326 IPC added vide order dated 01.11.2021 by this Court The petitioners as well respondents, who are accused in the above captioned cross cases against each other, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC

  for quashing of their respective petitions and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise effected between them.

2.

The genesis of the occurrence took place because servant of one of the accused was deputed on temporary basis with the other party whom they seen somewhere else. On this issue, the parties started fighting with each other, causing various injuries which resulted in registration of their respective petitions. It is needless to mention the details of the FIR because both the petitions are cross case to each other and in the absence of primary evidence, it is difficult to say that which party told truth. Moreover, the parties have now compromised the matter being neighbours and close related to each other vide compromise deed Annexure P-3.

3.

During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the injured have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition. After that, the petitioner has come up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, the injured have been impleaded as respondent(s). 4.

On the prayer of the parties, the Court had permitted the parties to appear before the concerned Court to record their statements. As per the concerned Sessions Court's report, the victim(s), without any threat, consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5.

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 07.09.2021, the parties appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sultanpur Lodhi, for recording their statements on oath. As per the report, the parties have compromised the matter because to maintain harmony in the family and put their litigation to an end. 6.

The following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: - a) The accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means;

c) The victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR

  and consequent proceedings are quashed;

e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

f) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

g) There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, habitual, or professional offender; h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family and society;

i) The ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power by quashing the FIR and the consequent proceedings. 7.

In the present case, the offences under section 326, 324, 148, & 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)are not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

8.

In Y. Suresh Babu v State of A.P., (2005) 1 SCC 347, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, Learned Counsel for the parties heard on the application made under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for leave to compound the offence. The appellant has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Although the offence under Section 326 of the Code is non-compoundable, learned Counsel for the parties submit that through the intervention of well- wishers the parties who are from the same locality have reconciled their differences to preserve amity and good relations. They pray for leave to compound the offence. The appellant stabbed D. Narsinga Rao, respondent No. 2 herein after an altercation near the pan shop owned by him. this was an unfortunate incident and the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that his client has a feeling of remorse. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 also joins in the prayer for permission to compound the offence.

2. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances, we grant leave as a special case to the parties to compound the offence on condition that the appellant pays Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No. 2 by way of compensation for the physical injury suffered by him. The amount of compensation shall be deposited in the Court of IInd

 Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad within one month from today. If the amount is not deposited within the period allowed, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below against the appellant under Section 326 of the Code shall stand. However, if the amount is deposited within the time allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code shall be set aside. Respondent No. 2 shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount unconditionally.

9.

In Parbatbhai Aahir v State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, laid down the broad principles for quashing of FIR, which are reproduced as follows:- [16]. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16 (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers.

It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; 16 (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16 (vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in

 punishing persons for serious offences;

16 (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

16 (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; 16 (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16 (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

10. In Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr.A 1489 of 2012, decided on 29.09.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [11]. True it is that offences which are 'non-compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as noncompoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

[12]. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are noncompoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very

  object of the administration of criminal justice system. [13]. It appears to us those criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of aprivate nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions.

It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice.

On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab &Ors. [(2014) 6 SCC 466, ¶ 29], and Laxmi Narayan [(2019) 5 SCC 688, ¶ 15].

[14]. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed between two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a 'settlement' through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided."

11. This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere in this kind of matter. Given the entirety of the case and judicial precedents, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever. The Court is inclined to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings in the peculiar facts and circumstances.

12. In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble Supreme 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.

 13.

In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, 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."

14. Given above, 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 mentioned above. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitions are allowed in the aforementioned terms. The FIR, DDR and other proceedings captioned above, with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners of both petitions. The bail bonds of the petitioners are accordingly discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 05.01.2022 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No