Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 1435
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
Rajesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondent
CRM No. 23525-26 of 2015 in CRA-S-3053-SB-2009 (O&M)
Decided On : 24.8.2015
For the Appellant :Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab, Kuldeep Joshi, Advocate.
The court's decision emphasized the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise and the influence of previous court decisions on the present case.
Headnote:
Compounding - Criminal Procedure - Section 320(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant seeks compounding of offence and disposal of the appeal based on a compromise between the parties. The appellant was convicted under Section 420 IPC and the parties have entered into a compromise.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal, ordered the compounding of the offence under Section 420 IPC, and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise between the parties.
Issues: Compounding of offence under Section 320(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, interpretation of the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise, and the influence of previous court decisions on the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compounding of the offence under Section 420 IPC was allowed based on the compromise between the parties. The court also interpreted the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise, citing previous court decisions.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the offence under Section 420 IPC was ordered to be compounded, and the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed based on the compromise between the parties.
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
CRM No. 22525 of 2015
CRM application is allowed as prayed for and the amended memo of parties is taken on record.
CRM No. 22526 of 2015 in/and
CRA-S-3053-SB-2009 (O&M)
1. By way of the filing CRM-22526-2015, under Section 320(5) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant/petitioner seeks compounding of offence and disposal of the appeal on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has not misused the concession of bail. He further states that during the pendency of the present appeal, the parties have entered into compromise, Annexure A-1.
3. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, admits the factum of the compromise.
4. The appellant has been convicted under Section 420 IPC for the term of four years along with fine of Rs. 7,000/-. The sentence of the appellant has already been suspended vide order dated 27.04.2011. Para No. 4 of the compromise, Annexure A-1 reads as under :-
"(4) That henceforth, none of the party shall file any legal proceedings against each other. Similarly, the party of the Second Part shall not file any legal proceedings on account of his acquittal in the criminal case against the party of the 1st Part, as well as, the witnesses, as the same shall be solely on the basis of this compromise.
"Section 320(5) Cr.P.C. reads as under :-
"320. Compounding of offences.
(1) XXX
(2) XXX
(3) XXX
(4) XXX
(5) When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard."
5. The appellant was sent to face trial under Sections 364/406/420 IPC, whereas, the learned trial Court recorded the conviction only under Section 420 IPC, which is a compoundable offence.
6. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Surat Singh's case (supra), has held in para 6 as under :-
"6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and, in particular, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. He submits that he has compromised the lis with the appellant at her own will. In view of the above, while disposing of this appeal, we accord permission to compound the offences and the effect of this would be the acquittal of the accused with the offences he is charged with."
In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 102, a Division Bench of this Court has held thus:-
"(12) The decision in Gian Singh's case (supra) also approves the view taken by a five-Judge Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2007(3) RCR (Crl.)1052.
(13) It is indeed now inarguable to say that the power exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for the quashing of criminal prosecution is limited or affected by the provision of Section 320 CrPC.
(14) We may, however, hasten to add that power of the Court under Section 320 CrPC to `compound' an offence on the basis of compromise between the accused and the victim can be invoked only if the subject offence is compoundable. In other words, power under Section 320 CrPC is not exercisable in relation to a case of non-compoundable offence as ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a string of decisions including (i) Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa, (1995) 5 SCC 238; (ii) Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 343; and (iii) Gulab Das & Ors. v. State of MP, (2011) 10 SCC 765.
(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 CrPC and pass an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of justice. Question No. 2
(16) As regards the doubt expressed by the learned Single Judge whether the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties can be invoked even i
