Sukhmander Singh And ORS v. Gurdeep Singh And ANR

-1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 20.12.2021 Sukhmander Singh and others ......Petitioners

Versus

Gurdeep Singh and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Present:

Mr. J.S.Lalli, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. C.L.Pawar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.

(ORAL) CRM-42928-2021 1.

The present application has been filed for preponing the date of hearing of main case.

2.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the application is allowed. The main case is preponed, and, is taken up on board for hearing today.

CRM-M No. 40867 of 2020 1.

The accused faced trial for charges drawn under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, upon complaint case no. 87 dated 31.10.2014, proceeded to, vis-a-vis, the afore drawn charges against the accused, made a verdict of conviction, upon them, and, also proceeded to impose, upon the convicts, sentence of rigorous imprisonment extending upto period of two

-2years and, also imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-, and, further ordered that upon default of payment of fine, the convicts shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 60 days.

2.

The afore drawn verdict of conviction and consequent therewith sentences (supra), as made upon the convicts, became appealed by the latter, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. However, during the pendency of the afore appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, the petitioners rather accesses this Court, through their casting a petition under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., hence seeking relief that all the consequential proceedings, as arise, from complaint bearing No. 87 dated 31.10.2014, titled as Gurdeep Singh versus Sukhmander Singh and others, constituting therein offences embodied in Sections 326, 324, 323, 34 of the IPC, be quashed and set aside, pointedly on anvil of the apposite compromise drawn between the complainant, and, the accused. The compromise is enclosed with the petition as Annexure P-3. 3.

This Court through an order made on 08.12.2020 had directed the learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, to make a report to this Court, with respect to the voluntariness and genuineness of the afore compromise, as, became drawn amongst the complainant, and, the accused. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, concerned, after recording the statements of the accused, and, of the respondent, has proceeded to make a report, to this Court, that the afore drawn compromise amongst them, is with their free will and consent, and also is without any fear, threat, and pressure being executed upon each other. 4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, submits at the bar that all concerned have

-3appended their respective signatures on the compromise deed. 5.

The learned State Counsel submits, that the mandate of Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be recoursed after a verdict of conviction, being drawn by the learned Magistrate concerned against the convict, moreso when the latters appeal thereagainst is subjudice before the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot.

6.

However, the afore made submission is denuded of its vigour, in the face of a verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, upon, Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012, titled as "Ram Gopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh". In the afore judgment (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court became seized with a factual matrix, similar to the one, as exists before this Court, inasmuch as, after pronouncement of a verdict of conviction, by the learned trial Court concerned, upon the accused-convicts therein, theirs appealing there against before the learned Appellate Court concerned. Pointedly, during the pendency of an appeal made by the convicts, before the learned Appellate Court concerned, a compromise occurred amongst the complainant, and, the accused concerned.

Though, the first Appellate Court, in verdict (supra) took into consideration, the settlement which occurred inter se accused and the complainant. However, the learned Appellate Court concerned, came to an opinion that one amongst the offences, inasmuch as the one under Section 326 of the IPC was non-compoundable, rather within the ambit of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it came to a conclusion, that the compromise cannot be taken into consideration, for its making a valid order of composition.

7.

In a criminal revision petition, becoming preferred by the aggrieved, before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Gwalior Bench, a

-4similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court concerned. Consequently, the aggrieved were led to motion the Hon'ble Apex Court, through their respectively instituting Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012, and, Criminal Appeal No. 1488 of 2012 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Both the criminal appeals (supra) became decided through a common verdict rendered thereons on 29.09.2021. The Hon'ble Apex Court has made in paragraphs 19 & 20 thereof, paras whereof become extracted hereinafter, certain germane to the instant petition hence expostulations of law. A deepest reading of the hereinafter extracted paragraphs, makes it evidently clear, that even when some of the offences are declared noncompoundable, within the ambit of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, the plenitude, and, the amplitude of powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

, in the High Courts or the powers vested in Hon'ble Apex Court, under Article 142 Constitution of India, cannot yet become fitted, as, powers (supra), can yet be exercised beyond the ambit, and, frontiers of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Conspicuously, when an ad idem settlement occurs, and, when the judicially mandated exceptions to the exercise of powers (supra) are not surfacing. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded, that even if one of the offences in respect whereof, a verdict of conviction is handed, upon the accusedconvicts, relates to non-compoundable offence, hence within the domain of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. However, and, reiteratedly the width of the plenary jurisdiction, vested in the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

, can still be invoked, if the accused and the complainant enter, into a valid ad idem settlement, wherethrough they make an endeavour, to quash the criminal proceedings, which are yet pending before any Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction.

-519. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.

20.

Having appraised the aforestated parameters and weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that:

Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature;

Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest; Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand dismissed;

Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried

-6their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute(s);

Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on record to evince that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired between the parties;

Sixthly, since the Appellants and the complainant(s) are residents of the same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget and forgive any illwill and have no vengeance against each other; and Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain uneffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking at their present age. " 8.

However, the relevant parameters, for the High Courts, hence proceeding to invoke the jurisdiction vested in them under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even when some of the offences, in respect whereof a verdict of conviction is handed by the Magisterial Court concerned, are noncompoundable, hence are enshrined in paragraph 20. 9.

Bearing in mind the hereinabove extracted paragraphs, and also bearing in mind the report, as made to this Court, by the learned Court concerned, inasmuch as it revealing that the accused and the respondent hence entering into a valid ad idem compromise, and also it being a sequel of no pressure or coercion, being exercised upon each other. Therefore, this Court deems it fit, to, after bearing all in mind the relevant parameters, enshrined in the relevant paragraphs carried in verdict (supra), to accept the settlement arrived at inter se the accused, and the complainant, dehors the

-7fact that may be some of the offences, are non-compoundable. 10.

Therefore, in view of the valid compromise, occurring inter se all concerned, this Court, in view of the judgment pronounced in Ram Gopal's case (supra), proceeds to set aside the proceedings in appeal, as are pending, against the verdict of conviction, recorded vis-a-vis the accused, by the learned Magistrate concerned.

11.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and, the complaint (supra), and, also all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, qua the petitioners. The judgment, and, order of conviction, and, sentence are also set aside.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE December 20, 2021 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes