Gurminder Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ANR
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 21.11.2022 Gurminder Singh and others ......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present :
Mr.Lakhvir Kumar, Advocate for Mr. M.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.
Ms.Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate for Ms. Pooja Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2.
**** JAGMOHAN BANSAL , J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of FIR No.81 dated 17.04.2019, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1), and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise-deed/affidavit dated 11.05.2019 (Annexure P-2).
In terms of order dated 31.05.2019, learned SDJM, Phagwara has submitted his report dated 22.10.2019. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :- "(i) In the case titled as State vs Gurminder Singh and Ors FIR No.81 dated 17.4.2019, Gurminder Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Pyara Sandhu have been arrayed
-2as accused in FIR.
(ii) No accused is proclaimed offender in the said case. (iii) Complainant Ravinder Kumar as well as accused Gurminder Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Pyara Sandha have appeared before the undersigned.
(iv) Complainant Ravinder Kumar has made a statement that present FIR No.81 dated 17.04.2019 u/s 420 465/467/468/ 471 and 120-B of IPC, P.S.City Phagwara was got registered upon his statement against all accused. He has effected the compromise with the above named accused with his own free will, voluntarily without any fear, threat or coercion or pressure. Original compromise is. Ex. PA. He identify his signatures upon compromise at Point X. He produce copy of Aadhar Card as Mark A, to prove his identity. He has not objections if the FIR against the above said all the accused may kindly be quashed.
(v) Statement of all the accused namely Gurminder Singh. Sukhwinder Singh and Pyara Sandhu were also recorded, wherein they stated that an FIR No.81 dated 17.04.2019 u/s 420/465/467/468/471 and 120-B of IPC. P.S.City Phagwara was got registered against them upon the statement of complainant Ravinder Kumar son of Sh.Surinder Kumar r/o Village Mandali District SBS Nagar. They have effected the compromise with the above named complainant. They have effected compromise with their own free will, voluntarily without any fear, threat or coercion or pressure. Original compromise is Ex.PA. They produce copy of Aadhar Cards as Mark B, Mark C and Mark D respectively to prove our identification. They have no objection if the FIR against them may kindly be quashed.
(vi) Statement of Investigating Officer SI Baljinder Singh No. 1674/BTL PS City Phagwara was also recorded,
-3wherein he has stated that there is only one complainant in this case namely Ravinder Kumar."
Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection if the present FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed. 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. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case 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.
-412. 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 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
-5powers 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. There appears to be no chance of conviction, the continuance of the proceedings would just waste valuable judicial time and it is well-known fact that courts are already over burdened.
-6deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed. FIR No.81 dated 17.04.2019, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE 21.11.2022 anju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No