Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 176

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Sewa Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.t. Chandigarh & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 5538 of 2022
Decided On : 04-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Addl. P.P. U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can quash criminal proceedings based on a voluntary compromise, considering the impact on public peace, moral turpitude, and the purpose of criminal jurisprudence.

Headnote:
Quashing of FIR - Compromise - 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC - Ss 467, 468, and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court analyzed the compromise between the accused and the aggrieved person, ensuring it was not secured through coercion, threats, or other dubious means. The court considered the impact on public peace, moral turpitude, and the purpose of criminal jurisprudence. It referred to various legal provisions and judicial precedents to justify the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person. The accused and the aggrieved person had compromised the matter, and the aggrieved person consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compromise was voluntary and not secured through coercion. It considered the impact on public peace, moral turpitude, and the purpose of criminal jurisprudence. The court referred to legal provisions and judicial precedents to justify the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the voluntary nature of the compromise, impact on public peace and moral turpitude, and the purpose of criminal jurisprudence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the voluntary nature of the compromise, the impact on public peace and moral turpitude, and the purpose of criminal jurisprudence. It referred to legal provisions and judicial precedents to justify the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings.
Final Decision: The court invoked the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. 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

06.01.2022

South Sector 34, District Chandigarh

419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC

1. The petitioner, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 petitioner came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent.

4. On 11-02-2022, the aggrieved person Mukesh Kumar Goyal (R-2) and Ritu Devi (R-3) stated before the JMIC Chandigarh 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 24-03-2022, 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 Ss 467, 468, and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. 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 C.B.I., New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, 1996(5) SCC 591, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[26]. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties, it appears to us that for the purpose of quashing the complaint, it is necessary to consider whether the allegation in the complaint prima facie make out an offence or not. It is not necessary to scrutinise whether the allegations are likely to be upheld in the trial. Any action by way of quashing the complaint is an action to be taken at the threshold before evidences are led in support of the complaint. For quashing the complaint by way of action at the threshold, it is, therefore, necessary to consider whether on the face of the allegations, a criminal offence is constituted or not.

[29]. In the facts of the case, it appears to us that there is enough justification for the High Court to hold that the case was basically a matter of civil dispute. The Banks had already filed suits for recovery of the dues of the Banks on account of credit facility and the said suits have been compromised on receiving the payments from the concerned Companies. Even if an offence of che