SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Sahil Goyal @ Kaku – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others – Respondent
CRM-M No. 5586 of 2020
Decided On : 10-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Amandeep Singh Gill, Sr. DAG

The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties, even if the offences are non-compoundable, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the impact on public interest, and the voluntary nature of the settlement.

Headnote:

Quashing of FIR - Settlement between Accused and Victim - Sections 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC - Section 320 of CrPC - Ram Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh, Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, Parbatbhai Aahir v State of Gujarat, Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh

Fact of the Case:

The accused filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victim(s). The victim(s) willingly consented to the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the settlement between the accused and the victim(s) was voluntary and not secured through coercion. It also considered the nature of the offences, the impact on public peace, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence. The Court invoked its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Court should quash the FIR and consequent proceedings based on the settlement between the accused and the victim(s), considering the non-compoundable nature of the offences under Section 320 of CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on various judicial precedents to establish that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties, even if the offences are non-compoundable. The Court considered the nature and gravity of the offence, the impact on public interest, and the voluntary nature of the settlement.

Final Decision: The Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s). The bail bonds of the petitioner were discharged, and all pending application(s) were closed.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara J.

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

227

11.11.2019

Gobindgarh Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib

324, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC

The petitioner(s), arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victim(s).

2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the victim(s) have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition. After that, the petitioner(s) came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, the victim(s) have been impleaded as respondent(s).

3. On the prayer of the parties in the present petition, the Court had permitted the parties to appear before the concerned Court to record their statements. As per the concerned Court's report, the victim(s), without any threat, consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings.

4. On 17-3-2020, the victims/respondents nos. 2 & 3, Darshan Singh and Bindia @ Bindiya Rani stated before the SDJM Amloh that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. The following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

    (a) The accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

(b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means;

(c) The victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

(d) There is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

(e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquility, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

(f) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

(g) There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, or professional offender;

(h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society;

(i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. The offence under section 324, 148, 149 of IPC are non compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, without adjudicating this point, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

7. In Ram Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 2 SCC 149, Supreme Court holds,

    The appellants, who are the accused and the complainant, Shri Ram, who was the person injured as a result of firing, have appeared before us and stated that they wish to compound the offence. The offence for which both the appellants have been convicted is one under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by Shri Ram, we think that the proper offence for which the appellants should have been convicted was under Section 324 read with Section 34. Shri Ram received only one injury on the shoulder and that was also in the nature of simple hurt. We would, therefore, convert the conviction of the appellants to one under Section 324 read with Section 34. Since the parties belong to the same village and desire to compound the offence, we think, in the larger interest of peace and harmony between the parties and having regard to the nature of the injury, that it would be pro

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top