Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Harpal Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 48134 of 2019
Decided On : 29-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. J.S. Mahal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. H.S. Multani, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sidharth Gupta, Advocate for Mr. M.S. Bajwa, Advocate for respondent No. 2, 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 non-compoundable offences based on a voluntary settlement between the parties, considering the nature of the offences and the ends of justice.

Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of FIR - 353, 332, 186, 34 IPC - 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 victim. The court relied on judicial precedents to justify the exercise of inherent powers and considered the nature of the offences, the settlement between the parties, and the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:

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

The court found that the settlement between the parties was voluntary and not secured through coercion or threats. It considered the nature of the offences, the impact on public peace, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence. The court invoked inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the quashing of non-compoundable offences under sections 353, 332, & 186 of IPC based on the compromise between the accused and the victim, and the exercise of inherent powers under section 482 CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on judicial precedents to justify the exercise of inherent powers and considered the nature of the offences, the settlement between the parties, and the ends of justice. It emphasized that the exercise of inherent powers must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law.
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 petitioner were discharged, and all pending application(s) were closed.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
99	24.09.2018	Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur	353, 332, 186, 34 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.

3. 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).

4. On 3-12-2019, the victim/ complainant Gurwinderjit Singh, (respondent no. 2) stated before the JMIC Gurdaspur that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 12-12-2019, 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(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, 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. In the present case, the offences under sections 353, 332, & 186 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 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 Procedure Code are not for that purpose controlled by Sect