Baljinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another
!
"# $% % &' "( ) * "+,
%%% "
) - )!.!
*
."'/ "( "
, )
%%% !0 "( " )1# 23 % *
*3
!
" # $$$$
*34 % 536 % ! &'# ( (
)* +,- .#/0 /& #/0'12 304 &56.'/500,( 7 !* 8!(88 /# /9 #/##12 3#4
In terms of order dated 07.09.2022, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul, District Bathinda, has submitted her report dated 21.10.2022. The relevant extracts of the report as as below:-
1. As per the statement of Assistant Sub Inspector Jasvir Singh No.1701/BTI, P.S. Phul, there is only one accused in the present case. As per the statement of complainant Gurcharan Singh, the present FIR was lodged by him against accused Baljinder Singh only.
2. As per the statement of Assistant Sub Inspector Jasvir Singh No.1701/BTI, P.S. Phul, the accused has not been as declared proclaimed offender.
3. The compromise effected between the parties appears to be
genuine, valid, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. Statements of parties were duly recorded before the undersigned and they were duly identified by their respective counsel.
4. As per the statement of Assistant Sub Inspector Jasvir Singh No.1701/BTI, P.S. Phul, the accused person is not involved in any other FIR.
Learned State counsel would submit that he has not objection if the present FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed. - 8:
!
"#$%! &'
()) " 7 ;:! 8 ( 2*$+,
!
, ) -
""";( &'#( ( * 38 !! 88!" 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 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.
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 nonheinous 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 postconviction, 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.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. +8 +,-%( 88!" 8! " !!
%38 8 ! % ! "
7
" ! 8"3)"
! , " ! 8 !" " +,- .#/0 /& #/0'
12 304 &56.'/500,(
7 !* 8* *
*3
$% %
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No <!=>