Pawan And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.11.2022 Pawan and others ......... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present :

Mr.Ravi Kumar Girdhwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Nitish Yadav, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

**** JAGMOHAN BANSAL , J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of FIR No. 240 dated 04.09.2019, under Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sahlawas, District Jhajjar (Annexure P-1), and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise-deed/affidavit dated 21.09.2022 (Annexure P-2). In terms of order dated 25.09.2019, learned JMIC, Jhajjar has submitted his report dated 18.10.2019. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :- "Thereafter, Investigating Officer HC Dalbir Singh no. 73, police station Salhawas, Jhajjar suffered a statement that he is Investigating Officer in the case bearing no, 240 dated 04.09.2019 under Sections 323, 452, 506 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The present FIR was got registered by complainant Krishan Kumar son of Ram Kashion, R/o Amadalpur Shahpur, Salhawas. There are four accused persons in the present case namely

-2Omparkash son of Ram Kanwar, Chandan Lal son of Ram Kanwar, Pawan son of Chandan Lal and Raj Kumar son of Om Parkash, all residents of village Amadalpur, Police Station Salhawas. There is no other accused person except the aforesaid four accused nor any accused has been declared proclaimed offender in the present case. The accused are not involved in any other case and in the present case, there is no other complainant and injured/victim except complainant Krishan Kumar and victim/Injured Ram Kishan. On 03.10.2019, he had given an application in the Court of Illaga Magistrate for issuance of warrant of arrest against the accused. There is no other case registered against the accused. In the present FIR, challen has not been submited in the Court.

On perusal of the joint statement of the complainant and injured/victim as well as accused and on perusal of statement of Investigating Officer HC Dalbir, this Court is of the considered view that there are four accused namely Om Parkash, Chandan Lal, Pawan and Raj Kumar in the present FIR. No accused has been declared as proclaimed offender. The compromise effected between accused and complainant and victim/injured is gettine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. Accused persons are not involved in any other case. There is no other complainant except Krishan Kumar and no other victim/ injured except Ram Kishan."

Learned State counsel submits that she 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

-3Bench 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.

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,

-4even 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 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

-5society 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. In view of above facts and circumstances, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed. FIR No. 240 dated 04.09.2019, under Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sahlawas, District Jhajjar (Anneuxre P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).

( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE 10.11.2022 anju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No