Prem Kumar And ANR v. State Of Punjab And ORS
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14.11.2022 Prem Kumar and another ......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present :
Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
**** JAGMOHAN BANSAL , J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of FIR No.99 dated 03.06.2016, under Sections 323, 324, 452, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Bast Bawa Khel, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1), and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise-deed/affidavit dated 19.07.2017 (Annexure P-2).
In terms of order dated 24.01.2019, learned JMIC, Jalandhar has submitted his report dated 17.12.2018. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :- "This Court is of the considered opinion that : i.. That the compromise has been effected between the parties is genuine and same is voluntary, without any pressure or coercion.
-2ii. That the compromise has been effected between the parties is genuine and valid.
Iii. There are two accused in FIR No.99 dated 03.06.2016 namely Prem Kumar and Mohit Kumar. It is relevant to mention here that accused Mohit cited as accused in FIR No.99 dated 03.06.2016 U/s 323/324/452/148/149 IPC has not appeared before undersigned for recording his statement. As per parties he went to abroad and as per remand papers NonBailable warrants of accused Mohit were issued by this court. There are two accused in DDR No.70 dated 07.06.2016 namely Sunil Kumar@ Rahul and Reena Verma.
iv. As per the statement of parties no other case is pending between them.
v. As per statement of Investigating Officer no accused is declared as proclaimed offender in FIR No.99 dated 03.06.2016 U/s 323/324/148/149 IPC and in DDR No 70 dated 07.06.2016."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported as 2012 (12) SCC 401, to contend that where there is a partial compromise with some of the accused then also, the proceedings against the said petitioner/accused should be quashed as the same would not even remotely result in conviction of the said accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed in CRM-M-16318-2015 titled as 'Dalip Mandal and another Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others', in which case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the petition qua the petitioners only although, the matter had not been compromised
-3between all the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had already withdrawn petition qua petitioner No.2.
Learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner No.2 has already been declared proclaimed offender and he has no objection if the present FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed qua petitioner No.1. Relying upon its earlier judgments in 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 10 SCC 303' and 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688', a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC online SC 834' while dealing with power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the disputing parties has held: "11. True it is that offences which are 'noncompoundable' 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 320Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320Cr.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 non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482Cr.P.C.
-4case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482Cr.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 non- compoundable. 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 that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private 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
-5secure 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.3 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
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 betwixt 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."
From the perusal of the enclosed FIR, report of the Trial Court and compromise arrived between the parties, it transpires that contesting parties have amicably resolved their issue, thus, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. The alleged offences are of predominantly private in nature and no moral turpitude or interest of public at large is involved.
-6it is well-known fact that courts are already over burdened. In view of above facts and circumstances, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed. FIR No.99 dated 03.06.2016, under Sections 323, 324, 452, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Bast Bawa Khel, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar (Anneuxre P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s) only.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE 14.11.2022 anju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No