Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jagmohan Bansal, J.
Mandeep Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 50837 of 2022
Decided On : 07-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Rajinder, Advocate, S.K. Sirsa, Advocate, Amish Sharma, Advocate, Prince Sharma, Advocate

The High Court has the power to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable, especially in cases involving non-heinous offences or predominantly private in nature, to secure the ends of justice.

Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Sections 323, 341, 379, 356, 506, 148 & 149 IPC and 379-B - The court referred to the power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the disputing parties and highlighted the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the High Court can quash proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable, especially in cases involving non-heinous offences or predominantly private in nature, to secure the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings based on a compromise with the complainant. The petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in a complaint case but had compromised the matter with the complainant.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the contesting parties had amicably resolved their issue, and the alleged offences were predominantly private in nature with no moral turpitude or public interest involved. The court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings and quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings based on a compromise, the nature of the alleged offences, and the power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the High Court's power to quash proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., especially in cases involving non-heinous offences or predominantly private in nature, to secure the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. - The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.003 dated 06.01.2017 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 341, 379, 356, 506, 148 & 149 IPC and 379-B added later on, registered at Police Station Chhajali, District Sangrur, and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of Compromise/Affidavit dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in a complaint case, however, he has compromised the matter with the complainant and accordingly, order initiating proclamation proceedings stands recalled vide order dated 25.11.2022 passed by JMIC, Sunam.

3. In terms of order dated 03.11.2022, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sangrur, has submitted his report dated 03.12.2022. The relevant extracts of the report as as below:-

'Thus, by considering of such things, it is clear that compromise so effected between Mandeep Sharma and complainant Narinder Pal Singh is a genuine and such parties entered into compromise voluntarily. Accused/petitioner Mandeep Sharma has been appearing in the present case and is on bail. Apart from that one State case bearing FIR No.144 dated 16.08.2013 under sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC is pending against Mandeep Sharma and at present, he is on bail in that case. It is added that Mandeep Sharma was also involved in a complaint case under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but at present he has been discharged in that case for the time being. It is added that accused Mandeep Sharma has been declared as 'proclaimed offender' in three cases i.e. present case bearing FIR No.03 dated 06.01.2017 for offences under sections 341, 323, 325, 379-B, 506 and 201 read with section 34 of IPC PS Chhajli, Complaint case under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and State case bearing FIR bearing No.144 dated 16.08.2013 under sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC. But at present, he is on bail in the present case and in that State case bearing FIR No.144 dated 16.08.2013 under sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC. While he has been discharged in Complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.'

Learned State counsel would submit that State has no objection if the present FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.

4. Relying upon its earlier judgments in 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 10 SCC 303' and 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688', a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC online SC 834' while dealing with power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash non- compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the disputing parties has held:

'11. True it is that offences which are 'non-compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document