SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Gurjant Singh @ Sonu & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 8831 of 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr.G.S. Bajwa, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, AAG, Punjab Mr. G.S. Randhawa, Advocate for respondent No.2, for the Respondent

The main legal point established is that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise, even for non-compoundable offences, if it serves the ends of justice and does not impact public interest.

Headnote:

Compromise - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - 326/324/325/323/341/506/148/149 IPC - The court discussed the relevance of the compromise, absence of coercion, public impact, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence in justifying the quashing of the complaint and consequent proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The accused sought quashing of the complaint and summoning order based on a compromise with the victim. The victim and accused had amicably settled the matter, and the victim consented to quashing the complaint and consequent proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compromise was voluntary, did not impact public peace or moral fabric, and was in line with the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence. It held that despite the non-compoundable nature of the offences, the prosecution could be closed by quashing the complaint and consequent proceedings.

Issues: The issues involved the validity of quashing non-compoundable offences based on a compromise, the impact on public interest, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents to establish that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise, even for non-compoundable offences, if it serves the ends of justice and does not impact public interest. It emphasized the need to evaluate the nature and gravity of the offence and the impact on society.

Final Decision: The court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the complaint and all subsequent proceedings, discharging the bail bonds of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

Complaint No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

22 as well as summoning order

05.07.2017/ 06.03.2019

Beas, Amritsar

326/324/325/323/341/506/148/149 IPC

1. The petitioners arraigned as accused in the above captioned complaint, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the Complaint alongwith summoning order dated 06.03.2019 and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victim.

2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the injured have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-3.

3. After that, the petitioners came up before this Court to quash the complaint, and in the quashing petition, the injured has been impleaded as respondent No.2.

4. On 11-3-2022, the victim/complainant Nishanjot Singh, respondent no. 2 stated before the JMIC, Baba Bakala Sahib that there would be no objection if the court quashes this complaint and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 15-3-2022, the parties consented to the quashing of complaint 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 victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

      d) There is no objection from the private respondent in case present complaint 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 complaint and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

      6. The injured and all the accused had appeared before the Court of JMIC 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.

      7. In the present case, the offences under section 326, 324, 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 complaint and consequent proceedings.

      8. In Y. Suresh Babu v State of A.P., (2005) 1 SCC 347, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with section 326 of IPC, which was non-compoundable offence, permitted the parties to compound the offence.

      9. In Yogendra Yadav v State of Jharkhand, 21.7.2014, Supreme Court holds,

          [4]. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non- compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly

                          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                          1
                          2
                          3
                          4
                          5
                          6
                          7
                          8
                          9
                          10
                          11
                          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                          supreme today icon
                          logo-black

                          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                          Please visit our Training & Support
                          Center or Contact Us for assistance

                          qr

                          Scan Me!

                          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                          whatsapp-icon Back to top