Daljeet Alias Jeeta And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others



 




 
 




 !"#"$%
&

&

'
'

(


(


















(



(





 

%


)'
&
( 


('

  
  

  
 

 
 
 
 


   


!

"
# 
 
 
 $ 
 



 
%&

' (((( 
('

*
&
+, -.

 


 
)*&
 

+  
,-
%
..*

/*01&0/)
 
/)*
/)1
'&'
'&) '&.

)2&

-
  

 

   
    

34 
5/6




 +
    7


8

7 9
 

/00*&0&& 34 
5)6 -
 7


01//&0&&


 
  


  
:


; 
  
 87

  

&2//&0&&

 
4 



  
 

8 $
5 In view of aforesaid directions, the point-wise report is as follows :- The statements of complainant/injured and accused persons after being enquired by this court about their voluntariness to effect the compromise have been recorded on 23.11.2022. As per the said statements, the parties have entered into the compromise Ex.Cl due to intervention of covillagers and relatives to restore peace and harmony between them. The have also identified

their respective signatures/thumb impressions on the original compromise Ex.C1 which has been placed on record. In view of above, the compromise seems to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion. ii) All the the accused are appearing before the Court and they are on bail.

) No other criminal case is pending or registered against them as per the statements of the parties.

None of the accused has been declared a proclaimed offender.

7

- 
<
$

8
 

 
  7
  

  

&2//&0&&
87
8

 
 
 
=  


  
 7
-  <
87




8 

,-

 +


$

7 
 
+  


 
 
 7

>


 

  



  

 !  

"#$%!  &'

()) 

$ ; 
?


#>8 
 7
 

)*$+, 

 

 ! 

,  ) -
$ 
 $
$

#
 
 
)*&

 

+ 
5 7  8 



8

7 
8$



 



 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 noncompoundable. 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 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 extra-ordinary 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.

, 7

  


 
,- 
  


 

 

7 
 
8$

  

 

 
  
 

78 
  




 

 

  
$

8
 
8






 
 

5 7 


 


7 
  
  

8 

 

  
 




8

 






$

 
$   8 
 
7



$

5!$


 
 
   
8  
-
$

8


 7  




 

8


$

 



$ 

,-
%
..*

/*01&0/)
 
/)*
/)1 '&'
'&)
'&.

)2&

-
  

 

     
 
34 
5/6




 +

  
  7
 
+ 
+

 3 6







+

('
.

 '0//&0&&

@

!9   A 9%