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) 1267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jagmohan Bansal, J.
Gurpreet Singh and Another - Petitioners - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and Another - Respondents - Respondent
CRM-M-25659 of 2022
Decided On : 23-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Khushika Setia, Advocate for Mr. S.P.S. Chakkal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

The central legal point established in the judgment is 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, especially in cases involving non-heinous offences or offences of a private nature, with the aim to secure the ends of justice.

Headnote:

Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Sections 376 and 328 of IPC - [Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 10 SCC 303, The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688, Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC online SC 834] - The court discussed 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. It emphasized that while non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded by a criminal court, the High Court can use its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice, especially in cases involving non-heinous offences or offences of a private nature. The court highlighted that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice, and that there can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice.

Fact of the Case:

The petition was filed for quashing of FIR No.50, dated 15.03.2020, under Sections 376 and 328 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/ affidavit dated 23.05.2022.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the contesting parties had amicably resolved their issue, and continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose as there appeared to be no chance of conviction. Therefore, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

Issues: The issues involved the quashing of FIR under Sections 376 and 328 of IPC based on the compromise between the parties, and the exercise of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized 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, especially in cases involving non-heinous offences or offences of a private nature, with the aim to secure the ends of justice.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and FIR No.50, dated 15.03.2020, under Sections 376 and 328 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.50, dated 15.03.2020, under Sections 376 and 328 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala, (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/ affidavit dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure P-4).

2. In terms of order dated 22.08.2022 of this Court, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Patiala has submitted his report dated 17.09.2022. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-

    “On the basis of above referred statements of the complainant/prosecutrix as well as of accused, I have the honor to submit point wise report as under:-

1. Two accused namely Gurpreet Singh and Manpreet Singh are arraigned in the FIR; and both have appeared before the court and made their statements on 31.08.2022 and none of the accused is absconding/PO in the case;

2. The name of complainant/aggrieved is Ravneet Kaur who appeared before the court on 31.08.2022 and made her statement in support of the compromise;

3. Stage of Proceedings-Consideration on charge.

4. The compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties.

5. No other criminal case is pending against any of the accused.”

3. Statement of Investigating Officer was recorded by Trial Court and said statement is part of report dated 17.09.2022 submitted by learned Trial Court.

4. Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating Officer and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that they have no objection if FIR and consequent proceedings in view of compromise are quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that they have solemnized marriage and putting on the same floor.

6. 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 320Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320Cr.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 320Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482Cr.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 willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non- compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.

13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a

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