Gurtej Singh vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3251

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
Gurtej Singh & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M NO. 52099 of 2018
Decided On : 27-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate; For the Petitioners
For the Respondent: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Jasinder S. Sekhon, Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306/34 - Petition for quashing FIR on grounds of mutual compromise - The parties compromised and reported genuineness of the compromise, establishing that the continuation of proceedings serves no useful purpose. (Paras 2, 12, 22)

(B) Criminal law - Compounding of offences - Compromise between parties in criminal matters recognized under Section 320 Cr.P.C. - High Court possesses inherent power to quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences under Section 482, ensuring interests of justice. (Paras 18-19)

(C) Mens Rea - For conviction under Section 306 IPC, clear mens rea is required; mere allegations of harassment without active involvement of accused leading to suicide are insufficient for conviction. (Paras 11, 17, 21)

Facts of the case:
FIR registered against petitioners for abetting suicide; parties reached compromise, claiming no instigation led to the incident.

Findings of Court:
No offence under Section 306 IPC; proceedings quashed due to lack of evidence and amicable resolution.

Issues: Can the FIR under Section 306 IPC be quashed based on a compromise?

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that, in the absence of evidence of instigation and given the genuine compromise, continuation of the case is not justifiable.

Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. procedure for quashing fir based on compromise (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. legal system aims for social harmony and conflict resolution (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. criminal acts affect society; not all disputes can be compromised (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. criteria for instigation under section 306 ipc (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. mens rea and actus reus required for abetment (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. inherent powers of the high court under section 482 (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
7. continuing proceedings without grounds for conviction wastes judicial resources (Para 21 , 22)
8. petition allowed; fir quashed due to compromise (Para 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.0239, dated 20.09.2018 under Sections 306 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala (Annexure P-1), with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 01.11.2018 (Annexure P-2).

2. During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have compromised the matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.

3. Vide order dated 29.03.2023, parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court and report with regard to the genuineness of the compromise was called for.

4. The report dated 13.04.2023 has been received from Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, stating that the parties have entered into a compromise, which is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.

5. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of the compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully with their able assistance.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. More often than not the civil disputes or inter-se conflicts of two parties transform 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 the 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 lot more offences prescribed outside IPC. Even to the offences