SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jyoti Thakur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 15 January, 2019

CRM-M No. 37737 of 2017 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 37737 of 2017
Date of Decision:-15.01.2019

Jyoti Thakur
…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

…Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

Present:- Mr. Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. A.S. Barnala, Advocate for
Mr. Ranjit Singh, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.

MANOJ BAJAJ J.(Oral)

Through this petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the

petitioner has prayed for quashing of Complaint No.20 dated 10.4.2012

(CIS No.298 of 2013) titled as ‘Gurdial Singh vs. Jyoti Thakur’, under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 IPC, filed in the Court of Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, and the

proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 29.9.2017

(Annexure P-4) entered into between the parties, including the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 09.2.2017 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya (Annexure P-2) whereby the petitioner has

1 of 6
11-02-2019 07:23:12 :::
CRM-M No. 37737 of 2017 -2-

been convicted and sentenced as under :-

U/Sec. R.I. Fine In default R.I.
467 IPC 3 year `1000/- 30 days
468 IPC 3 years `1000/- 30 days
471 IPC 2 years `500/- 30 days

All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

Vide order dated 09.10.2017, the parties were directed to

appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements and report

was sought regarding compromise.

In deference to the said order, a report dated 07.12.2017

submitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya, reveals that as per

statements made by the parties in the Court, they have voluntarily entered

into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the said settlement is

without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their free will.

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has also fairly

conceded the factum of compromise entered into between the parties. He

has submitted that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine

and without any pressure or coercion.

Learned State counsel also does not dispute the factum of

compromise between the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

case file.

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

2 of 6
11-02-2019 07:23:12 :::
CRM-M No. 37737 of 2017 -3-

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
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

3 of 6
11-02-2019 07:23:12 :::
CRM-M No. 37737 of 2017 -4-

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
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

4 of 6
11-02-2019 07:23:12 :::
CRM-M No. 37737 of 2017 -5-

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

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.

Since the parties have settled the dispute and decided to live in

peace, therefore, no meaningful purpose would be served in allowing the

5 of 6
11-02-2019 07:23:12 :::
CRM-M No. 37737 of 2017 -6-

criminal proceedings to continue.

In view of the above, present petition succeeds. Consequently,

the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.2.2017

passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya, are set aside and the

Complaint No.20 dated 10.4.2012 (CIS No.298 of 2013) titled as ‘Gurdial

Singh vs. Jyoti Thakur’, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 IPC,

filed in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, District

Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed,

on the basis of compromise dated 29.9.2017 (Annexure P-4).

The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid

judgment of conviction and order of sentence is rendered infructuous and

shall be declared so by the first Appellate Court.

Disposed off.

January 15, 2019 ( MANOJ BAJAJ )
Vijay Asija JUDGE

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

6 of 6
11-02-2019 07:23:12 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation