Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Bhupinder Kumar @ Buli and others - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another - Respondent
CRM-M-10183-2020
Decided on : 05-01-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bansal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. H.S. Sitta, AAG, Punjab., Mr. Gulraj Khan, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings based on a genuine compromise between the parties, even for non-compoundable offences, considering the ends of justice, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence.
Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of FIR - 452, 323, 427, 506, 148 & 149 IPC - 452, 148, & 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the compromise between the accused and the private respondent(s) in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court. It evaluated whether the settlement was secured through coercion, threats, or other dubious means and considered the willingness of the victim to consent to the nullification of criminal proceedings. The court also considered the impact on public peace, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence. It referred to the principles for quashing of FIR laid down in Parbatbhai Aahir v State of Gujarat and the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences. The court also cited the case of Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing the High Court's discretion to quash proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable. The court highlighted the need to secure the ends of justice and the distinction between serious offences and those predominantly of a private nature. It also referred to the observations in Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney and Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on a compromise with the victims. The allegations involved a dispute between the petitioner and the complainant's father, leading to an attack by the petitioner and others on the complainant. The accused and the injured later compromised the matter, leading to the petition before the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the compromise between the accused and the private respondent(s) was genuine and without coercion or undue influence. It concluded that the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power by quashing the FIR and the consequent proceedings, considering the nature of the offences and the impact on public peace.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings based on the compromise between the accused and the private respondent(s), the nature and gravity of the offence, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the genuine compromise between the parties, the evaluation of the settlement for coercion or undue influence, the impact on public peace, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence. It also considered the principles for quashing of FIR laid down in relevant precedents and the High Court's discretion to quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences.
Final Decision: The Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings in the peculiar facts and circumstances. The FIR and other proceedings, with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, were quashed, and the bail bonds of the petitioners were discharged.
JUDGMENT :
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
| 415 | 13.10.2019 | City Barnala, District Barnala | 452, 323, 427, 506, 148 & 149 IPC |
1. The petitioners, who have been arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victims.
2. The gist of the allegations against the petitioner(s) is that on 13.10.2019, police recorded the statement of the complainant (respondent No.2) in the following terms:-
He stated that his neighbor (petitioner No.1) has a dispute with his father inter se regarding family partition. He being a neighbor was trying to stop both of them, however on 12.10.2019, Bulli again started giving beatings to his father, on which he along with local persons gave an application against him in the police station. Thereafter in the evening at about 7 pm, Bulli along with some persons, armed with iron rods, attacked him with danda and some sharp edged weapons and proclaimed that he would teach him a lesson. With great difficulty, the complainant saved his life. Based on such information, police registered the FIR captioned above. During the investigation, police found that the petitioners were also arraigned as accused in the aforesaid FIR.
3. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the injured have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition. After that, the petitioners have come up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, the injured have been impleaded as respondent(s).
4. On the prayer of the parties, the Court vide had permitted the parties to appear before the concerned Court to record their statements. As per the concerned Sessions Court's report, the victim(s), without any threat, consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings.
ANALYSIS & REASONING:
5. As per report of CJM, Barnala, statements of all the parties have been recorded and compromise effected between them is genuine and without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. It is also submitted in the report that as per statement of the complainant, he has no objection if the present FIR along with all consequential proceedings, is quashed.
6. 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 tranquillity, 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, habitual, or professional offender;
h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family and society;
i) The ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power by quashing the FIR and the consequent proceedings.
7. In the present case, the offences under sections 452, 148, & 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) are not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by qu
