S.No.287
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFPUNJABANDHARYANA
ATCHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-12936of2019(OM)
DateofDecision:14.05.2019
KulwantSingh…..Petitioner
Vs.
StateofPunjabandanother…..Respondents
CORAM:-HON’BLEMR.JUSTICERAJBIRSEHRAWAT
Present:-Mr.RajeevSharma,Advocate
forthepetitioner.
Mr.PrabhjotSinghWalia,AAG,
Punjab.
Mr.RajuArora,Advocatefor
complainant-respondentNo.2.
****
RajbirSehrawat,J.(Oral)
ThispetitionunderSection482oftheCodeofCriminal
ProcedurehasbeenfiledforquashingofFIRNo.71dated14.06.2018
registeredunderSections406IPC(Sections420and201SectionIPCaddedlater
on)atPoliceStationKoomkalan,TehsilandDistrictLudhianaandall
consequentialproceedingsarisingtherefrom,onthebasisofcompromise.
Videorderdated20.03.2019,thepartiesweredirectedto
appearbeforethelearnedtrialCourt/IllaqaMagistrate,forgettingtheir
statementsrecorded;astothegenuinenessofthecompromise.In
compliancethereof,reportofJudicialMagistrateIstClass,Ludhiana,dated
10.04.2019hasbeenreceived,wherein,ithasbeennoticedthatthematter
hasbeencompromisedwiththeinterventionofrespectablesandfriendsof
boththeparties,compromisehasbeeneffectedwiththeirfreeconsentand
withoutanypressureorundueinfluencefromanyquarter.
1of6
09-06-201907:07:18:::
CRM-M-12936of2019(OM)-2-
Theultimateaim,objectiveandgoalofalegalsystemisto
reconcilethesocialconflicts.Lawisrequiredonlytoensurethatpeopledo
nothavetofightwitheachotherjusttoprotecttheirrighttoproperty,right
tolifeandlibertyandotherrightssecuredtothembythelegalsystem.The
civildisputesaretheconflictsbetweentwoparties,havinglesserovertones
forthesocialorder,socialharmonyorthesocietyassuch.Henceabsolute
freedomisgiventothepartiestosettletheirdisputesbycompromises,of
course,comingwithcertainlegalconsequencesaswell.However,the
criminaldisputesdonotnecessarilyrestrictthemselvestoonlytwoparties
tothedisputeintermsoftheirscope,consequencesandeffect.Thecriminal
actstendtocasttheireffectandconsequencesevenuponthesocietyat
large.Therefore,thelawprescribespunishment,severepunishmentsandthe
extremepunishments,includingdeathpenaltyforcriminalacts.
Howevermoreoftenthennotthecivildisputesorinter-se
conflictsoftwopartiestransformsthemselvesintocriminalaspect.
Therefore,thelegalsystemplaysempiretoresolvetheconflictbetweentwo
parties;withtheaddedtaskofensuringthattheadverseimpactofdispute
quasocietyatlargeisminimized.Butstillthecoreideaistoresolvethe
conflictbetweentwosidesbyputtingittorest.Therefore,eventhecriminal
lawisrequiredtogivedueregardtothewishesofthepartiestodispute.
Recognizingthisprincipleonly,theIndianlegalSystemalsoprovidesfor
recognizingthecompromisebetweentwosidesofacriminaldispute.
Section320Cr.P.C.isanexpressprovisioninthisregard.Thissectionnot
onlyprovidesforcompoundingduringthetrial,butpermitscompounding
evenatappellateorrevisionalstage.Howeverbyitsverynatureandscope,
Section320Cr.P.C.cannotbethesolerepository;whereintherecognition
2of6
09-06-201907:07:19:::
CRM-M-12936of2019(OM)-3-
toacompromisebetweenthepartieshave;necessarily;tobeconfined.This
sectionrelatesonlytotheoffencesprescribedunderSectiontheIndianPenalCode.
TherearealotmoreoffencesprescribedoutsideSectionIPC.Eventotheoffences
existingintheSectionIPCnewdimensionsareaddedfromtimetotime,makingthe
existingoffencestobelighterorstringentandevennewmodalitiesofproof
ofoffencesarebeingrecognisedinviewoftechnologicaladvancement.
ThisnecessitatesandrequirestheneedforlookingbeyondSection320
Cr.P.C.torecognisethecompromisebetweenthepartiestodispute.Butto
maintainthesanctityoftheprocedureprescribedforcriminaltrial;theTrial
Courtcannotbepermittedtotravelbeyondthescopeprescribedunderthat
procedure.HencetheneedforinvokingSection482Cr.P.C.bytheHigh
Court.
But,asobservedabove,thewishesofonlypartiestothe
criminaldisputewouldnotalwaysbesufficienttoterminateacriminaltrial
inviewofthepatent,latentorsubtleeffect;theirconductwouldhaveleft
quathesocietyatlarge.Thereforetheoffencescommittedbypersons
involvedingovernanceoradministrationforacquiringofficialpoweror
whileexercisingofficepowercannotbepermittedtobecompromised.
Likewise,eventheoffencesinvolvingonlytwoprivatepersons,but
reflectingdepravityofcharacterorinvolvingcausingintentionallossoflife
orcausingintentionallossofpropertybyextendingimminentthreatofloss
oflife;cannotbepermittedtobecompromised.Excepttheabovementioned
graveoffences,thereiseveryreasonthatallotheroffencesshouldbe
permittedtobecompromisedbytheCourt.Sincetheproofofoffences
beforetheCourt,againwouldinvolvetheconductofthepartiestodispute,
thereforeiftheCourtdoesnotpermitthesametobecompromisedthenthe
3of6
09-06-201907:07:19:::
CRM-M-12936of2019(OM)-4-
partieswouldtendtoplaytricksupontheCourttoensuretheacquittalof
accusedbysubvertingtheadministrationofcriminaljustice.Anditisnever
intheinterestofadministrationofcriminaljusticetoforcethecitizento
learnandadoptthetricksdesignedtobeplayeduponCourtstosubvertthe
justicesystem.Soitwouldalwaysbeintheinterestofjusticeitself;thatthe
compromisebetweenthepartiesisrecognizedandthecitizenremain
mooredandcommittedtotheessentialsofthesystemofadministrationof
justice,atleast,quathoseoffences,whichtheinterestofsocietydoesnot
permittobecompromised.
Hon’bletheSupremeCourthasamplyclarifiedthelegal
positiononrecognizingcompromisinginthecaseofGianSinghVs.State
ofPunjabandanother,2012(4)RCR(Criminal)543,andhasobservedas
under:-
“57.Thepositionthatemergesfromtheabovediscussioncan
besummarisedthus:thepoweroftheHighCourtinquashing
acriminalproceedingorFIRorcomplaintinexerciseofits
inherentjurisdictionisdistinctanddifferentfromthepower
giventoacriminalcourtforcompoundingtheoffencesunder
Section320oftheCode.Inherentpowerisofwideplenitude
withnostatutorylimitationbutithastobeexercisedinaccord
withtheguidelineengraftedinsuchpowerviz;(i)tosecurethe
endsofjusticeor(ii)topreventabuseoftheprocessofany
Court.Inwhatcasespowertoquashthecriminalproceeding
orcomplaintorF.I.Rmaybeexercisedwheretheoffenderand
victimhavesettledtheirdisputewoulddependonthefactsand
circumstancesofeachcaseandnocategorycanbeprescribed.
4of6
09-06-201907:07:19:::
CRM-M-12936of2019(OM)-5-
However,beforeexerciseofsuchpower,theHighCourtmust
havedueregardtothenatureandgravityofthecrime.
Heinousandseriousoffencesofmentaldepravityoroffences
likemurder,rape,dacoity,etc.cannotbefittinglyquashed
eventhoughthevictimorvictim’sfamilyandtheoffenderhave
settledthedispute.Suchoffencesarenotprivateinnatureand
haveseriousimpactonsociety.Similarly,anycompromise
betweenthevictimandoffenderinrelationtotheoffences
underspecialstatuteslikeSectionPreventionofCorruptionActorthe
offencescommittedbypublicservantswhileworkinginthat
capacityetc;cannotprovideforanybasisforquashing
criminalproceedingsinvolvingsuchoffences.Butthecriminal
caseshavingoverwhelminglyandpredominatinglycivil
flavourstandondifferentfootingforthepurposesofquashing,
particularlytheoffencesarisingfromcommercial,financial,
mercantile,civil,partnershiporsuchliketransactionsorthe
offencesarisingoutofmatrimonyrelatingtodowry,etc.orthe
familydisputeswherethewrongisbasicallyprivateor
personalinnatureandthepartieshaveresolvedtheirentire
dispute.Inthiscategoryofcases,HighCourtmayquash
criminalproceedingsifinitsview,becauseofthecompromise
betweentheoffenderandvictim,thepossibilityofconvictionis
remoteandbleakandcontinuationofcriminalcasewouldput
accusedtogreatoppressionandprejudiceandextreme
injusticewouldbecausedtohimbynotquashingthecriminal
casedespitefullandcompletesettlementandcompromisewith
5of6
09-06-201907:07:19:::
CRM-M-12936of2019(OM)-6-
thevictim.Inotherwords,theHighCourtmustconsider
whetheritwouldbeunfairorcontrarytotheinterestofjustice
tocontinuewiththecriminalproceedingorcontinuationofthe
criminalproceedingwouldtantamounttoabuseofprocessof
lawdespitesettlementandcompromisebetweenthevictimand
wrongdoerandwhethertosecuretheendsofjustice,itis
appropriatethatcriminalcaseisputtoanendandifthe
answertotheabovequestion(s)isinaffirmative,theHigh
Courtshallbewellwithinitsjurisdictiontoquashthecriminal
proceeding.”
Thepresentcasedoesnotfallinanyoneoftheexceptions
envisagedabove.Hence,inviewofthereportofJudicialMagistrateIst
Class,Ludhianadated10.04.2019madeinpursuanceoftheorderdated
20.03.2019passedbythisCourt,theCourtfeelsthatnousefulpurpose
wouldbeservedbykeepingtheproceedingsalive.Itwillbeintheinterest
ofjustice,ifthesettlementreachedbetweenthepartiesisaccepted.
Accordingly,thepresentpetitionisallowed.FIRNo.71dated
14.06.2018registeredunderSections406IPC(Sections420and201SectionIPC
addedlateron)atPoliceStationKoomkalan,TehsilandDistrictLudhiana
andallconsequentialproceedingsarisingtherefrom,areherebyquashedqua
thepresentpetitioner,onthebasisofcompromisearrivedatbetweenthe
parties.
May14,2019(RAJBIRSEHRAWAT)
renuJUDGE
WhetherSpeaking/reasonedYes/No
WhetherReportableYes/No
6of6
09-06-201907:07:19:::
