CRM-M No. 29676 of 2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 29676 of 2017
Date of Decision:-28.11.2018
Jasbir Singh and others
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
…Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
None for respondents No.2 to 4.
MANOJ BAJAJ J.(Oral)
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
for quashing of FIR No. 113 dated 06.10.2011, under Sections 326, 458,
325 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station
Dharamkot, District Moga (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise
dated 07.7.2017 (Annexure P-3) alongwith all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom including the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 16.9.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Moga (Annexure P-2) whereby the petitioners have been convicted and
sentenced as under :-
1 of 7
31-12-2018 21:54:28 :::
CRM-M No. 29676 of 2017 -2-U/Sec. R.I. Fine In default R.I.
458/34 IPC 3 year `500/- 7 days
326/34 IPC 3 years `500/- 7 days
325/34 IPC 3 years `500/- 7 days
323/34 1 year — —
All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
Quashing of the aforesaid FIR and setting aside of the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.09.2016
passed by learned trial Court is sought on the basis of compromise dated
07.07.2017 as entered between the parties during the pendency of the
appeal before the learned Appellate Court, Moga.
Vide order dated 16.8.2017, the parties were directed to appear
before the Appellate Court and the Appellate 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 Appellate 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 16.8.2017, the parties, except
respondent No.4-Gurvinder Singh, have appeared before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Moga on 30.08.2017 for getting their statements
recorded. However, respondent No.4-Gurvinder Singh, in compliance of
order dated 19.9.2018 passed by this Court, on request of his counsel,
appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, on
15.10.2018 and recorded his statement with regard to the compromise
effected between the parties.
2 of 7
31-12-2018 21:54:29 :::
CRM-M No. 29676 of 2017 -3-
The reports dated 31.8.2017 and 22.10.2018 received from the
learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Moga reveal that the
compromise has been effected between the parties without any undue
pressure. It is also reported that petitioners have not been declared a
proclaimed offender.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 have also fairly
conceded the factum of compromise entered into between the parties. He
had 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 appropriate3 of 7
31-12-2018 21:54:29 :::
CRM-M No. 29676 of 2017 -4-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.
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 considered4 of 7
31-12-2018 21:54:29 :::
CRM-M No. 29676 of 2017 -5-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 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 petitioners5 of 7
31-12-2018 21:54:29 :::
CRM-M No. 29676 of 2017 -6-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
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 Sessions Judge, Moga has submitted the report in
support of genuineness of the compromise, the present petition is allowed
and the FIR No. 113 dated 06.10.2011, under Sections 326, 458, 325 and
6 of 7
31-12-2018 21:54:29 :::
CRM-M No. 29676 of 2017 -7-
323 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Dharamkot,
District Moga (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed, on the basis of compromise dated 07.07.2017
(Annexure P-3).
Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 16.09.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Moga, are set aside. The appeal preferred by the petitioners against
the aforesaid judgment and order is rendered infructuous and shall be
declared so by the first Appellate Court.
Disposed off.
November 28, 2018 ( MANOJ BAJAJ )
Vijay Asija JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
7 of 7
31-12-2018 21:54:29 :::
