Amrik Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 23.12.2022 Amrik Singh and others ......... Petitioners

Versus

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

Mr.J.S.Jaidka, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Abhishek Khullar, Advocate for Mr. Harinderpal Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

**** JAGMOHAN BANSAL , J. (Oral) The petitioners, through instant petition, are seeking quashing of DDR No.22 dated 02.02.2014 registered at Police Station Hathur, District Ludhiana under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 34 of IPC 1860 (In FIR No.13 dated 02.02.2014) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise-deed/affidavit dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-1).

In terms of order dated 09.12.2022, learned JMIC, Jagraon, has submitted her report dated 19.12.2022. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :- "I am satisfied with regard to the authenticity of the compromise and the fact that it has been arrived at

-2between the parties without any kind of undue influence or pressure. The parties have placed on record their identity proofs which are correct as per original and copies of the same are attached herewith for your kind perusal and both the parties have been duly identified by their respective counsel.

It was assured beforehand that the parties are giving their statements voluntarily without any pressure and I am satisfied that, the compromise is genuine and voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence." Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported as 2012 (12) SCC 401, to contend that where there is a partial compromise with some of the accused then also, the proceedings against the said petitioner/accused should be quashed as the same would not even remotely result in conviction of the said accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed in CRM-M-16318-2015 titled as 'Dalip Mandal and another Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others', in which case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the petition qua the petitioners only although, the matter had not been compromised between all the parties.

FIR No.13 dated 02.02.2014 was cancelled and challan was presented qua DDR in question.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that complainant has passed away and wife of the complainant appeared before trial Court and tendered her statement.

Learned counsel for the State and private respondents/

-3complainant would submit that they have no objection if the present FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.

Learned counsel for private respondents-complainant submits that grievance of the complainant stands redressed and she undertakes not to raise any grievance against accused Jarnail Singh qua FIR in question. 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.

-4Court 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 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

-5substantial 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."

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.

-6In view of above facts and circumstances, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed. DDR No.22 dated 02.02.2014 registered at Police Station Hathur, District Ludhiana under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 34 of IPC 1860 (In FIR No.13 dated 02.02.2014) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s) only.

( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE 23.12.2022 anju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No