Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 457

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Ranjit Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Jasvir Kaur & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 54343 of 2019
Decided On : 11-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. L.S. Mann, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate for Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, AAG, Punjab, for the Respondent

The main legal point established is that the High Court can invoke its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, if it deems it necessary to secure the ends of justice.

Headnote:
Quashing of FIR - Compromise - Sections 323, 341, 326, 506, 148, 149 of IPC - 326, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482 CrPC
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victim. The victim consented to quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.
Finding of the Court:

The Court analyzed the settlement between the accused and the victim, ensuring it was not secured through coercion or threats. It considered the nature of the offences and the impact on public peace and tranquillity. The Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Court could quash the non-compoundable offences under section 326, 148, 149 of IPC based on the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on various judicial precedents to establish that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under section 482 CrPC, even for non-compoundable offences, if it deems it necessary to secure the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, and discharged the petitioner's bail bonds.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
61	11.10.2019	Kheri Nodh Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib	323, 341, 326, 506, 148, 149 of IPC

1. 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 injured 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 injured have been impleaded as respondent(s).

4. On 3-5-2021, the victim Jasvir Kaur, respondent no. 1, stated before the JMIC Khamanon that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 19-5-2021, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. 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 section 326, 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 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.

8. 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 followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 543 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 549 : (2012)10 SCC 303). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that w