Arun Kumar @ Anu vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 15 November, 2017

CRM-M-20738 of 2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

252 CRM-M-20738 of 2017
Date of Decision:15.11.2017

Arun Kumar @ Anu …..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another …..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.

Present: Mr. I.S. Brar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Mr.Bhupender Beniwal, A.A.G., Punjab,
for respondent No.1.

Mr. I.S. Mann, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.

****

HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for

quashing of FIR No.139 dated 10.04.2014 under Sections 279, 337, 427

IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1)

and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence both dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda on the basis of compromise dated 19.05.2017

(Annexure P-3).

This Court vide order dated 25.09.2017 had directed the parties

to appear before the Appellate Court to get their statements recorded with

regard to the compromise and the learned Appellate Court was directed to

send its report qua the genuineness of the said compromise.

1 of 5
22-11-2017 21:59:46 :::
CRM-M-20738 of 2017 2

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda and got their statements

recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Appellate

Court has submitted his report dated 27.10.2017 to the effect that the parties

have compromised the matter without any pressure, threat or coercion and is

the result of their free will. The compromise is genuine.

Perusal of the report submitted by learned Appellate Court

reveals that the statement of the petitioner-accused as well as separate

statement of respondent No.2-complainant Vaneet Sharma have been

recorded by learned Appellate Court on 24.10.2017 wherein they have

mentioned that the matter has been compromised between them without any

pressure, coercion and undue influence. The statement of respondent No.2-

complainant, who is author of the FIR, made before learned Appellate Court

is being reproduced as under:-

“I had got the present FIR registered bearing FIR No.139
dated 10.04.2014 u/s 279, 337, 338 of IPC of PS Kotwali
against the accused Arun Kumar @ Annu. In which the
accused Arun Kumar has been convicted. Now the
compromise has been effected between me and accused
Arun Kumar @ Annu without any pressure, coercion and
undue influence. I have no objection if the present FIR
may kindly be quashed and appeal be allowed.”

Learned State Counsel states that in the case in hand,

compromise cannot be accepted as the petitioner has been convicted on the

basis of available material.

The aforesaid contention of the learned State Counsel cannot be

accepted as this Court in the case of Sube Singh and another Versus State

of Haryana and another 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 has already

2 of 5
22-11-2017 21:59:47 :::
CRM-M-20738 of 2017 3

considered the compounding of offences at the appellate stage and has

observed that even when appeal against the conviction is pending before the

Sessions Court and parties entered into a compromise, the High Court is

vested unparallel power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash criminal

proceedings at any stage so as to secure the ends of justice. The

observations made in the said judgment are as under:

“15. The refusal to invoke power under Section 320 CrPC,
however, does not debar the High Court from resorting to
its inherent power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure
Code and pass an appropriate order so as to secure the
ends of justice.

16. As regards the doubt expressed by the learned Single
Judge whether the inherent power under Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal
proceedings on the basis of compromise entered into
between the parties can be invoked even if the accused has
been held guilty and convicted by the trial Court, we find
that in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh Anr., 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 910 : (2008)5
SCC 794, the unfortunate matrimonial dispute was settled
after the appellant (husband) had been convicted under
Section 498A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 18
months’ imprisonment and his appeal was pending before
the first appellate court. The Apex Court quashed the
criminal proceedings keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice
observing that “continuation of criminal proceedings
would be an abuse of the process of law” and also by
invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Since the High Court does not possess any power akin to
the one under Article 142 of the Constitution, the cited
decision cannot be construed to have vested the High Court
with such like unparallel power.

3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 22-11-2017 21:59:47 :::
CRM-M-20738 of 2017 4

17. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by
the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure
Code with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure
the ends of justice, however, is wide enough to include its
power to quash the proceedings in relation to not only the
non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under
Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code but such a power, in
our considered view, is exercisable at any stage save that
there is no express bar and invoking of such power is fully
justified on facts and circumstances of the case.

18. xxx xxx

19. xxx xxx

20. xxx xxx

21. In the light of these peculiar facts and circumstances
where not only the parties but their close relatives
(including daughter and son-in-law of respondent No.2)
have also supported the amicable settlement, we are of the
considered view that the negation of the compromise would
disharmonize the relationship and cause a permanent rift
amongst the family members who are living together as a
joint family. Non-acceptance of the compromise would also
lead to denial of complete justice which is the very essence
of our justice delivery system. Since there is no statutory
embargo against invoking of power under Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code after conviction of an accused by
the trial Court and during pendency of appeal against such
conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the inherent
jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings subject to
certain safeguards.

22. Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated, we
allow this petition and set aside the judgement and order
dated 16.03.2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 425-1 of
2000 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, on the
basis of compromise dated 08.08.2011 arrived at between
them and their step-mother respondent No.2 (Smt. Reshma
4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 22-11-2017 21:59:47 :::
CRM-M-20738 of 2017 5

Devi) w/o late Rajmal qua the petitioners only. As a
necessary corollary, the criminal complaint filed by
respondent No.2 is dismissed qua the petitioners on the
basis of above-stated compromise.

Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the petitioners against
the above-mentioned order dated 16.03.2009 would be
rendered infructuous and shall be so declared by the first
Appellate Court at Hisar.”

Therefore, while relying upon the aforesaid judgment and

coupled with the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and

learned Appellate Court has submitted its report in support of genuineness

of the compromise, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the

proceedings before the Appellate Court in the instant F.I.R.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.139

dated 10.04.2014 under Sections 279, 337, 427 IPC, registered at Police

Station Kotwali, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) is quashed qua the

petitioner on the basis of compromise dated 19.05.2017 (Annexure P-3).

Resultantly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

both dated 10.04.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bathinda are set aside. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the

aforesaid judgment and order is rendered infructuous and shall be declared

so by the Appellate Court.

November 15, 2017 (HARI PAL VERMA)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

5 of 5
22-11-2017 21:59:47 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *