Lal Chand vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2480

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Lal Chand & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M NO. 36014 of 2021
Decided On : 11-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate; For the Petitioners
Mr. Virat Rana, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for Respondents No.2 & 3.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Non-compoundable offences under IPC and Arms Act - Compromise reached between accused and victims, deemed genuine by the court - Although offences under Section 307 IPC are serious and typically non-compoundable, under specific circumstances, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court allows for quashing to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, especially when the dispute is personal in nature, the continuation of proceedings serves no purpose, and there is community interest in maintaining harmony. (Paras 6, 9, 12)

(B) Criminal Law - Social Impact - The inherent power of the High Court must consider the gravity of the offence and its societal implications while deciding on quashing proceedings. (Paras 10, 24)

(C) Judicial Precedents - High Courts may accept settlements and quash proceedings under 482 CrPC if convinced that the offences are personal and do not harm societal interest. (Paras 11, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused in FIR relating to serious offences, sought to quash the FIR based on a compromise with complainants, prompting the court to assess the genuineness of the compromise and the nature of the offences charged.

Findings of Court:
Quashing the FIR and all legal proceedings as the continuation would cause no useful purpose and the resolution secured peace among the parties.

Issues: The court examined the legitimacy of the compromise, societal impact of the offences, and past judicial decisions concerning similar circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized balancing the need to uphold justice while respecting the personal resolutions made between parties, provided that the offences do not significantly threaten societal well-being.

Result: Petition allowed and FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. details of the fir and compromise (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments against the compromise due to the nature of offences (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. judicial precedents on quashing under section 307 ipc (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. conclusion quashing the fir and proceedings (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
107	24.09.2020	Begowal, District Kapurthala	307, 379, 427, 323, 148, 149 IPC and 25/27 of ARMS ACT (307, 379 IPC deleted later on)

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.

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-2.

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

4. This court had asked the parties to appear before the concerned court and had asked the said court to give its report as per the format. The report reads as follows:

Name of the reporting Court

Shri Rahul Kumar, PCS, SDJM, Bholath

FIR No.	Dated Police	Station	Sections
107	24.09.2020	Begowal	307, 379, 427, 323, 148, 149 IPC and 25/27 of ARMS ACT (307, 379 IPC deleted later on)

Criminal Case no. before trial Court

CRMP-18/2021

1.	Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s)	1. Bevi 2. Sukhdev Singh
2.	Dates on which the statement(s) of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) were recorded	09.03.2023
3.	Has the identity of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified?	Yes, through their respective learned counsel as per their names mentioned in the FIR
4.	Whether all the victims/ all the aggrieved persons have compromised the matter?	Yes
5.	Is there pressure, threat, or coercion upon the victim(s)/aggrieved person(s)/complainant?	No
6.	Names of the accused person(s)	1. Lal Chand 2. Rajeev Kumar @ Sunny 3. Tarsem Lal @ Lada 4. Nanak 5. Vicky 6. Balram Singh 7. Sandip Kaur
7.	Dates on which the statement(s) of the accused persons(s) recorded	09.03.2023
8.	Whether all the accused have compromised the matter? If no, then the names of the accused who have compromised.	Yes, all the accused have compromised the matter
9.	Whether proclamation proceedings are pending against any accused?	No
10.	Has the police report been filed or not?	No
11.	Notice of accusation /Charges have been framed or not?	No
12.	Sections of statutes invoked in the matter	307, 379, 427, 323, 148, 149 IPC and 25/27 of ARMS ACT (307, 379 IPC deleted later on)
13.	Whether the court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise?	Yes

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 , 148 read with 149 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25 /27 of ARMS ACT 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.

7. It shall be appropriate to state that the parties are neighbours and the dispute started over a garage. One of the accused Balram is a minor, aged 17. The parties have settled their disputes with the intervention of local people and have buried their grievances.

8. The injured and all t