Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Harjit Singh @ Harjeet Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 10413 of 2022
Decided On : 29-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ankit Kharbanda, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, AAG, Punjab., Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3, for the Respondent

The main legal point established is that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be used to quash proceedings based on a compromise, even for non-compoundable offences, if it serves the ends of justice.

Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of FIR - 448, 511, 427, 379, 324, 506 and 34 IPC - The court discussed the relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents related to quashing of FIR based on compromise and concluded that the proceedings should be quashed in the interest 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(s) 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 victim(s) was voluntary and not secured through coercion. It also considered the impact on public peace, the nature of the offences, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence.
Issues: The issues involved the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings based on the compromise between the accused and the victim(s), despite the non-compoundable nature of some of the offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on judicial precedents to establish that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash proceedings based on a compromise, even for non-compoundable offences, if it serves the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, discharging the bail bonds of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
52	18.03.2016	Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural	448, 511, 427, 379, 324, 506 and 34 IPC

1. The petitioner(s), 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 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 15-03-2022, the victims/ aggrieved persons Sarabjit Kaur @ Sarabjeet Kaur (R-2) & Balbir Kaur (R-3) stated before the JMIC Amritsar that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 21-03-2022, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. Despite the 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. The offence under section 324& 511 IPC are non compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C). However, without adjudicating this point, 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 Ram Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 2 SCC 149, Supreme Court holds, The appellants, who are the accused and the complainant, Shri Ram, who was the person injured as a result of firing, have appeared before us and stated that they wish to compound the offence. The offence for which both the appellants have been convicted is one under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by Shri Ram, we think that the proper offence for which the appellants should have been convicted was under Section 324 read with Section 34. Shri Ram received only one injury on the shoulder and that was also in the nature of simple hurt. We would, therefore, convert the conviction of the appellants to one under Section 324 read with Section 34. Since the parties belong to the same village and desire to compound the offence, we think, in the larger interest of peace and harmony between the parties and having regard to the nature of the injury, that it would be proper to allow the parties to compound the offence.

8. 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 S