Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Darshan Kaur - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 21295 of 2019
Decided On : 08-09-2022

Advocates:
Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate for the petitioner., for the Appellant; Mr. H.S. Sitta, AAG, Punjab., Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For respondent No.2., for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the nature of the offence, societal impact, and the possibility of conviction while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.

Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of FIR - 307, 323, 506, 328, 511 & 34 IPC - 307, 323, 506, 328, 511 & 34 IPC - The court discussed the relevant acts and sections, including Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offence, societal impact, and the possibility of conviction. The court also referred to various judicial precedents on quashing under Section 307 IPC and laid down principles for exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on a compromise with the aggrieved person. The accused and the aggrieved person compromised the matter, and the petitioner came before the Court to quash the FIR. The aggrieved person and the accused consented to the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat or coercion.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the offences under section 307 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. The court emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offence, societal impact, and the possibility of conviction.
Issues: The issues involved the consideration of the compromise between the parties, the nature of the offences, and the societal impact of quashing the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court laid down principles for exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offence, societal impact, and the possibility of conviction.
Final Decision: The Court invoked the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s). The bail bonds of the petitioner were discharged, and all pending application(s), if any, stood closed.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - The petitioner, 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 a compromise with the aggrieved person.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
28	25.02.2016	Tanda, Distt. Hoshiarpur	307, 323, 506, 328, 511 & 34 IPC

2. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-4.

3. After that, the petitioner came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, the aggrieved person has been impleaded as respondent.

4. On 28-01-2020, the aggrieved person Paramjit Kaur, (R-2) appeared through her power of attorney, before the JMIC Dasuya, who on her behalf stated that there would be no objection if the Court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. Even the accused petitioner made a similar statement about the matter having been compromised. As per the concerned court's report dated 4-2-2020, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat or coercion.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5. The State's counsel has severely opposed this compromise and seeks dismissal of the petition because of the heinous nature of the offence.

6. In the present case, the offences under section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is 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. The complainant is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. She stated in compromise that now she is staying with her husband and all their matrimonial disputes stand resolved.

8. The parties are members of a family and when they have buried their hatchets, the continuation of criminal proceedings will not advance the reformative purposes of jurisprudence just for the sake of deterrence.

9. 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 conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON QUASHING UNDER SECTION 307 IPC:

10. 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 i