Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Ravinder Singh @ Billu & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-10613-2022
Decided On : 18-04-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Raman Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of coercion in a compromise, the societal impact of the offences, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence can justify the quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings under section 482 CrPC.

Headnote:
Quashing of FIR - Compromise - 307, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act - The court analyzed the compromise between the accused and the aggrieved person and the nature of the offences under the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act. It considered the societal impact, the settlement not being coerced, and the absence of objection from the private respondents. The court referred to various judicial precedents on quashing under Section 307 IPC to justify its decision to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
Fact of the Case:

The accused sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on a compromise with the aggrieved person. The parties had filed separate petitions for quashing the GD and the FIR registered on the basis of the cross-version. 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 compromise between the accused and the aggrieved person was not coerced and that there was no objection from the private respondents in case the present FIR and consequent proceedings were quashed. It considered the societal impact, the absence of ill will, and the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the compromise, the societal impact of the offences, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the absence of coercion in the compromise, the societal impact of the offences, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence to justify the quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
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 petitioners were discharged, and all pending application(s), if any, were closed.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

G.D. No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
38	6.8.2021	City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur	307, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act

1. The petitioners, arraigned as accused in the above captioned G.D. in FIR No.149 dated 1.8.2021 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/54/95 Arms Act, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the above G.D. and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person. A cross FIR based on the opposite versions was also registered on the statement of the petitioner's party against the complainant party.

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-3.

3. After that, the parties came to this court by filing separate petitions to quash the GD, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent. A separate petition was also filed for quashing of the FIR registered on the basis of the cross-version. Both petitions are registered as CRM-M-9866-2022; CRM-M-10613-2022.

4. On 15-03-2022, the aggrieved persons Sandeep Kaur (R-2) stated before the CJM Hoshiarpur 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 22-03-2022, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. The State's counsel has severely opposed this compromise and seeks dismissal of the petition because of the heinous nature of the offence.

6. In the present case, the offences under section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is 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. It is impossible to know which party is telling the truth and which one is telling lies in the current legally admissible investigation techniques. If the allegations made in the FIR were single side versions, then it was not a case to be quashed on compromise. However, there is an opposite version, which is also equally grave. When both parties fought to the extremes of cruelty, and despite compromising the matter on their own and with the intervention of the locals, they were not likely to change their stand in the trial. The parties belong to the same area, and it is better than the good sense that has now prevailed upon them continues to spread its light on them.

8. The injured and all the accused had appeared before the Court of CJM and had stated that they had entered into a compromise. The parties belong to the same village and must be living there for generations and might continue to live, but who knows for how long. In the closely-knit village community, when the parties have buried their hatchets, the continuation of criminal proceedings will not advance the reformative purposes of jurisprudence just for the sake of deterrence.

9. 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 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 pe