Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 400

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Amarjit Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 4151 of 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Himani Jamwal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, AAG, Punjab, Ms. Meghna Nagpal, Advocate for respondent No.2, for the Respondent

The court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences based on judicial precedents and the ends of justice.

Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341/352/427/186/353/148/149/201 - Summary: The court allowed the quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings based on the compromise between the accused and the victim. The court considered the nature of the settlement, absence of coercion, and the impact on public peace and tranquillity. The court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC to quash the non-compoundable offences based on judicial precedents and the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:

The accused sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on a compromise with the victim. The victim consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings based on the compromise between the accused and the victim, considering the absence of coercion and the impact on public peace and tranquillity.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should quash the non-compoundable offences based on the compromise between the accused and the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC to quash the non-compoundable offences based on judicial precedents and the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings. The bail bonds of the petitioners were discharged.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
104	4.10.2018	Sadar Sangrur	341/352/427/186/353/148/149/201 IPC

1. The petitioner(s), 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 victim.

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 as Annexure P-2.

3. After that, the petitioners came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, the victim has been impleaded as respondent(s).

4. On 03-3-2022, the victim/ complainant Winnerjit Singh, the respondent no. 2 stated before the Addl. CJM Sangrur that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 11-3-2022, 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(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, 186, 201, 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 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 purpo