Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Ankur @ Likha & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-17233-2022
Decided On : 30-08-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sant Lal Barwala, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Simar Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vishavjeet, Advocate, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to invoke inherent powers under section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings based on a voluntary settlement between the parties, considering the absence of public impact and the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence.

Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of FIR - Sections 323, 34, 452, 506 IPC & 27 Arms Act - The court invoked inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings based on the compromise between the accused and the aggrieved person. The court considered the nature of the allegations, the settlement between the parties, and the principles laid down in judicial precedents to justify the exercise of inherent powers.
Fact of the Case:

The accused petitioned the court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person. The aggrieved person consented to the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the settlement between the accused and the aggrieved person was voluntary and not secured through coercion or threats. It also considered the absence of public impact, the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence, and the potential ill will and career impact on the accused due to the trial's pendency.
Issues: The issues involved the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings based on the compromise between the accused and the aggrieved person, despite the non-compoundable nature of the offenses under sections 323, 34, 452 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on judicial precedents to justify the exercise of inherent powers under section 482 CrPC, emphasizing the voluntary nature of the settlement, the absence of public impact, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence.
Final Decision: The court invoked inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s). The bail bonds of the petitioners were discharged, and they were directed to surrender all weapons, firearms, ammunition, and the arms license within 30 days, unless permitted otherwise by the concerned Superintendent of Police.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
584	23.10.2018	Hansi City, District Hisar	323, 34, 452, and 506 IPC & 27 Arms Act.

1. The petitioners, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person.

2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.

3. After that, the petitioners came up before this Court to quash the FIR, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent in the quashing petition.

4. On 23.5.2022, the aggrieved person Ravi Mehta (Respondent no.2) appeared before the JMIC, Hansi and stated that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 26.5.2022, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. Despite the severe opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

a) The accused and the private respondent 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 aggrieved person has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondent 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, 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 FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. In the present case, the offences under sections 452 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act 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 quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

7. In Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[13]. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Indian Penal Code is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code on the other.

While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non- compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Pro