Gurpreet Singh @ Honey v. State of Punjab and Another

JAGMOHAN BANSAL  , J. (Oral)

¶1The petitioner through instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., on the basis of compromise, is seeking quashing of FIR No.11, dated 01.02.2020, under Sections 379-B, 506, 120-B, 148, 149 and 201 of IPC, registered at Police Station Lohian, District Jalandhar, (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶2In terms of orders of this Court, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has submitted his report. It  inter alia confirms that all the parties and Investigating Officer appeared before the Court and tendered their statements qua compromise arrived at between the parties; the compromise is voluntary, genuine and without any coercion. Accused Suraj Sharma @ Bhalu and Rohit have been declared proclaimed persons and FIR qua 3 others accused has already been quashed   by   High   Court   vide   order   dated   10.01.2022   passed   in CRM-M-14256-2024 2 CRM-M-52677 of 2021 titled as 'Lucky Sharma and other Vs. State of Punjab and others'.

¶3Learned  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.

¶4Learned 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.

¶5Learned State counsel on instruction from ASI Avtar Singh and learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that they have no objection if FIR and consequent proceedings in view of compromise are quashed.

¶6Relying 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 CRM-M-14256-2024 3 disputing parties has held: "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.

¶12The 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.

¶13It appears to us that criminal proceedingsAsgar Ali CRM-M-14256-2024 4 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).

¶14In 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 between two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable CRM-M-14256-2024 5 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."

¶7From 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 pre-dominantly 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. This Court qua 3 co-accused has already quashed FIR vide order dated 10.01.2022.

¶8In   view  of above  facts  and  circumstances,  the  present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed.

¶9FIR No.11, dated 01.02.2020, under Sections 379-B, 506, 120-B, 148, 149 and 201 of IPC, registered at Police Station Lohian, District   Jalandhar,   (Annexure   P-1),   and   all   other   consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner. ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE

05.07.2024 Ali

CRM-M-14256-2024 1 283 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14256-2024 Date of Decision:05.07.2024 GURPREET SINGH @ HONEY ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present : Mr. S.S. Thakur, Advocate and Ms. Pragati Kumari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kuljit Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ****