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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.
Jagtar Singh and others - Petitioners - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another - Respondents - Respondent
CRM-M No.39990 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 02-11-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sandhu, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the nature and gravity of the crime, the impact on society, and the possibility of conviction when deciding to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise.

Headnote:

Compromise - Criminal Procedure - Section 304, Section 34 IPC - Section 320 Cr.P.C. - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - [Section 304, Section 34 IPC, Section 320 Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to recognizing compromises in criminal disputes, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal disputes, the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C., and the need for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. to maintain the sanctity of the criminal trial procedure. The court also highlighted the types of offences that cannot be compromised, as clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, and provided guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings based on the nature and gravity of the crime.

Fact of the Case:

The petition was filed for quashing FIR No.40 dated 16.05.2023 registered under Sections 304 and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Laddowal, District Ludhiana, based on a compromise between the parties.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compromise between the parties was genuine and without any undue influence, coercion, or pressure, and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. The court also noted the possibility of quashing the offence under Section 304 IPC based on the compromise.

Issues: The issues involved the recognition of compromises in criminal disputes, the distinction between civil and criminal disputes, and the types of offences that cannot be compromised.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to consider the nature and gravity of the crime, the impact on society, and the possibility of conviction when deciding to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and FIR No.40 dated 16.05.2023 registered under Sections 304 and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Laddowal, District Ludhiana, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, were quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.40 dated 16.05.2023 registered under Sections 304 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') at Police Station Laddowal, District Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. Vide order dated 16.08.2023, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their statements recorded; as to the genuineness of the compromise. In compliance thereof, report of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana dated 15.09.2023, has been received, wherein, it has been noticed that the parties have settled the dispute amicably without any undue influence, coercion or pressure and none of the accused have been declared as proclaimed offender.

3. The ultimate aim, objective and goal of a legal system is to reconcile the social conflicts. Law is required only to ensure that people do not have to fight with each other just to protect their right to property, right to life and liberty and other rights secured to them by the legal system. The civil disputes are the conflicts between two parties, having lesser overtones for the social order, social harmony or the society as such. Hence absolute freedom is given to the parties to settle their disputes by compromises, of course, coming with certain legal consequences as well. However, the criminal disputes do not necessarily restrict themselves to only two parties to the dispute in terms of their scope, consequences and effect. The criminal acts tend to cast their effect and consequences even upon the society at large. Therefore, the law prescribes punishment, severe punishments and the extreme punishments, including death penalty for criminal acts.

4. However, more often then not the civil disputes or inter-se conflicts of two parties transforms themselves into criminal aspect. Therefore, the legal system plays empire to resolve the conflict between two parties; with the added task of ensuring that the adverse impact of dispute qua society at large is minimized. But still the core idea is to resolve the conflict between two sides by putting it to rest. Therefore, even the criminal law is required to give due regard to the wishes of the parties to dispute. Recognizing this principle only, the Indian legal System also provides for recognizing the compromise between two sides of a criminal dispute. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is an express provision in this regard. This section not only provides for compounding during the trial, but permits compounding even at appellate or revisional stage. However by its very nature and scope, Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole repository; wherein the recognition to a compromise between the parties have; necessarily; to be confined. This section relates only to the offences prescribed under the Indian Penal Code. There are a lot more offences prescribed outside IPC. Even to the offences existing in the IPC new dimensions are added from time to time, making the existing offences to be lighter or stringent and even new modalities of proof of offences are being recognised in view of technological advancement. This necessitates and requires the need for looking beyond Section 320 Cr.P.C. to recognise the compromise between the parties to dispute. But to maintain the sanctity of the procedure prescribed for criminal trial; the Trial Court cannot be permitted to travel beyond the scope prescribed under that procedure. Hence the need for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court.

5. But, as observed above, the wishes of only parties to the criminal dispute would not always be sufficient to terminate a criminal trial in view of the patent, latent or subtle effect; their conduct would have left qua the society at large. Therefore the offences committed by persons involved in governance or administration for acquiring official

    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