CRM-M No. 44573 of 2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 44573 of 2018
Date of Decision:-04.12.2018

Amit Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

…Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

Present:- Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, AAG, Haryana.

Ms. Bhawna Grewal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

MANOJ BAJAJ J.(Oral)

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is

for quashing of FIR No.506 dated 23.10.2011, under Sections 406, 420, 506

and 120-B IPC, Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar

(Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise dated 29.9.2018 (Annexure

P-5) alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including

the judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2015 and order of sentence dated

24.12.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (Annexure P-2 whereby the petitioner has been

convicted and sentenced as under :-

1 of 7
30-12-2018 03:48:05 :::
CRM-M No. 44573 of 2018 -2-

U/Sec. R.I. Fine In default S.I.

420 IPC 2 years `1000/- One month
406 IPC 1 year — One month
Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

Quashing of the aforesaid FIR and setting aside of the

impugned judgment of conviction dated23.12.2015 and order of sentence

dated 24.12.2015 passed by learned trial Court is sought on the basis of

compromise dated 29.9.2018 as entered between the parties during the

pendency of the appeal before the learned Appellate Court, Yamuna Nagar

at Jagadhri.

Vide order dated 09.10.2018, the parties were directed to

appear before the trial Court and the trial Court was directed to record the

statements of the parties and make report as to its satisfaction and submit

the same to this Court. The trial Court was also directed to intimate if any of

the parties to this petition has been declared as proclaimed offender.

In compliance of the order dated 09.10.2018, the parties have

appeared before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna

Nagar at Jagadhri, on 12.11.2018 for getting their statements recorded with

regard to the compromise effected between the parties.

The report dated 12.11.2018 received from the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri reveal that

the compromise has been effected between the parties is without any undue

pressure.

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 has also fairly conceded

the factum of compromise entered into between the parties. She has

2 of 7
30-12-2018 03:48:05 :::
CRM-M No. 44573 of 2018 -3-

submitted that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and

without any pressure or coercion.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the aforesaid factual

position, rather admits the factum of compromise effected between the

parties.

Heard.

This Court in the case of Sube Singh and another Versus

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

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 and has observed

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

3 of 7
30-12-2018 03:48:05 :::
CRM-M No. 44573 of 2018 -4-

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.

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

4 of 7
30-12-2018 03:48:05 :::
CRM-M No. 44573 of 2018 -5-

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 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.”

Similarly, in the case of Baghel Singh Versus State of Punjab

2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 578 whereby the accused was convicted under

Section 326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

5 of 7
30-12-2018 03:48:05 :::
CRM-M No. 44573 of 2018 -6-

two years, the parties entered into compromise during the pendency of the

appeal. This Court while relying upon the judgment of Lal Chand Versus

State of Haryana, 2009 (5) RCR (Criminal) 838 and Chhota Singh Versus

State of Punjab 1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 392 allowed the compounding of

offence in respect of offence under Section 326 IPC at the appellate stage

with the observation that it will be a starting point in maintaining peace

between the parties, such offence can be compounded.

In view of the above, when the matter has been compromised

between the parties with the intervention of respectables, no useful purpose

would be served to continue with the proceedings before the Appellate

Court.

Therefore, while relying upon the aforesaid judgments and

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

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri

has submitted the report in support of genuineness of the compromise, the

present petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment of

conviction dated 23.12.2015 and order of sentence dated 24.12.2015 passed

by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at

Jagadhri, are set aside and the FIR No.506 dated 23.10.2011, under

Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B IPC, Police Station City Jagadhri,

District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom are quashed, on the basis of compromise dated 29.9.2018

(Annexure P-5).

The appeal preferred by the petitioners against the aforesaid

6 of 7
30-12-2018 03:48:05 :::
CRM-M No. 44573 of 2018 -7-

judgment and order is rendered infructuous and shall be declared so by the

first Appellate Court.

Disposed off.

December 04, 2018 ( MANOJ BAJAJ )
Vijay Asija JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No

7 of 7
30-12-2018 03:48:05 :::