The central legal point established in the judgment is the acceptance of post-conviction compromises and the influence of relevant legal provisions, such as Section 320 of the CrPC, in quashing criminal proceedings based on voluntary compromises.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - The petitioner, who stands convicted in the trial for the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 401 CrPC for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 14.1.2009 (upheld in appeal), sentence, charges, and the FIR, based on the compromise with the victim.

2. The gist of the allegations against the petitioner is of cheating the complainant.

3. During the pendency of the petition, the parties i.e. petitioner and the victim have entered into an out of Court compromise. They have annexed the copy of the compromise with this petition as Annexure P-1.

4. On the prayer of the parties in the present petition, the Court had permitted the parties to appear before the concerned Court to record their statements. As per the concerned Court's report dated 3.8.22, the victim Emenual Masih, without any threat, consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings.

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, and professional offender;

h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, and society;

i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. 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 and the trial would be futile exercise resulting in loss of material time and resources as the injured are likely to not support the case of prosecution.

7. In the present case, the offences under section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

8. In Ram Pujan and ors. v. State of U.P., 1973 AIR(SC) 2418, a three-judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, based on the post-conviction compromise reduced the sentence under section 326 IPC to that of already undergone.

9. In Ram Prasad and Another v. State of Uttar Pardesh, Cr.A Nos. 308-309 of 1980, decided on April 21, 1980, Hon'ble Supreme Court converted the conviction from 307 IPC to 324 IPC and after that based on compromise, accepted the compounding of offence under section 324 IPC and acquitted the appellants.

10. In Ramji Lal v. State of Haryana, (1983) 1 SCC 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a matter arising against the conviction under section 325 IPC, held,

[5]. All the offences for which the appellants are convicted are compoundable and the compromise can be ente