Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 1181
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SURESHWAR THAKUR, SUDEEPTI SHARMA, JJ.
Rakesh Das - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No. 48043 Of 2023
Decided On : 12-11-2024
For the Parties :Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia Advocate (Amicus Curiae), Mr. Raunaq Singh Aulakh Adv., Mr. D.S. Matya Adv., Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary Adv., Mr. Gurmail Singh Duhan Adv., Mr. Himanshu Choudhary Adv., Mr. Govind Chauhan Adv., Mr. P.P.S. Duggall Adv., Mr. K.S. Dadwal Adv., Mr. Viney Saini Adv., Mr. Harparteek Singh Sandhu Adv., Mr. Harsh Vasu Gupta Adv., Mr. Puneet Sharma Adv., Mr. Vishal Sharma Adv., Mr. Ramnish Puri Adv., Ms. Monika Tanwar Adv., Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Adv., Mr. Puneet Kapoor Adv., Mr. Inderpal Singh Adv., Ms. Puja Chopra Adv., Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta Adv., Mr. R.S. Sidhu Adv., Mr. Ankur Mittal AAG, Haryana, Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar Sr. DAG, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago DAG, Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur Adv., Ms. Saanvi Singla Adv., Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi AAG, Punjab, Mr. Maninder Singh Sr. DAG, Punjab, Mr. Akhil Sharma Adv., Mr. Brahmjot Singh Nahar Adv., Mr. Arav Gupta Adv., Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Adv.
The court emphasizes that piecemeal settlements in criminal cases can undermine the judicial process and should not be accepted, requiring a unified approach to ensure justice.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 (now substituted by Section 528 in BNSS) - Partial quashing of FIR - The court addresses the lack of explicit guidelines for partial quashing based on compromise, leading to conflicting views among co-ordinate benches. The court refers two issues to a larger bench: (i) the implications of partial compromise for quashing FIRs against some accused, and (ii) whether such compromises elevate victims' roles in the criminal justice system. (Paras 2, 26, 27)
(B) Judicial Precedents - The court discusses various judgments that allowed or declined partial quashing of FIRs, emphasizing the need for caution in piecemeal settlements to avoid undermining the integrity of the judicial process. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 10, 12)
(C) Legal Principles - The court reiterates that the inherent power under Section 482 is distinct from compounding under Section 320, and should be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases involving serious offences. (Paras 8, 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The reference arises from conflicting decisions regarding partial quashing of FIRs based on compromises among some accused, necessitating clarification on the legal principles governing such actions.
Findings of Court:
The court concludes that piecemeal settlements can lead to significant legal complications and should not be accepted, as they may disrupt the criminal justice process.
Issues: The court addresses whether partial compromises can justify quashing FIRs against some accused and the potential for victims to influence the criminal justice system.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need for a unified approach to prevent piecemeal settlements that could undermine the judicial process and the rights of all parties involved.
Result: The reference is answered, affirming the need for caution in accepting piecemeal settlements.
JUDGMENT :
(Sureshwar Thakur, J.)
Since a common question of law is involved in all the petitions (supra), therefore, the said question of law is amenable to be answered through a common verdict being made thereons.
2. The present reference becomes generated from the order pronounced by a learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.2.2024 upon CRM-M-48043-2023 and another connected case (supra), whereins, the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:-
“25. Moreover, this Court has also examined the judgments cited by the learned amicus curiae, details whereof are tabularized hereinafter. In some of these judgments, the Coordinate Benches of this Court have allowed partial quashing of FIR, on the basis of partial compromise, whereas, in some of these judgments, the said relief has been declined.
“Judgments wherein partial quashing has been allowed.
S.No. Case Title Citation Date
1. Harvinder Singh and Ors. V. State of Haryana and Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3114 03.11.2022
2. Sarabjeet Singh V. State of Punjab 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 479 01.05.2007
3. Gurtej Singh V. State of Haryana 2010 (3) RCR (Criminal) 660 26.03.2010
4. Joginder Singh V. State of Punjab CRM-M-23739- 2010 27.04.2011
5. Baldev Singh V. State of Punjab CRM-M-46037- 2021 04.04.2022
6. Malak Singh V. State of Punjab CRM-M-8999- 2020 09.02.2023
7. Harsimran Singh V. State of Punjab CRM-M-14035-2022 24.04.2022
8. Parambir Singh Gill V. Malkiat Kaur (2010) 1 RCR (Criminal) 256 12.05.2009
Judgments wherein partial quashing has been declined.
S.No. Case Title Citation Date
1. Manohar Singh Manohari V. State of Punjab CRM-M-36765- 2011 27.11.2012
2. Manjinder Kaur V. State of Punjab CRM-M-32486- 2015 25.07.2017
3. Navdeep Kumar and Anr. V. State of Haryana and Anr. CRM-M-42254- 2013 12.11.2014
26. In summa, when there are no explicit guidelines/”ratio decidendi”/”legal precedent” governing the issue of partial quashing of criminal proceedings, on the basis of partial compromise, coupled with the fact that conflicting views are adopted by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in the hereinabove cited judgments, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to refer the following issues for adjudication to a Larger Bench of this Court:-
“(i) Whether, bearing in mind the repercussions attached to partial quashing of FIR, on the trial of other co-accused, can a partial compromise yet ably constitute the ground for quashing of FIR, only qua some of the accused ?
(ii) Would partial quashing of criminal proceedings, on the strength of partial compromise, elevate the status of victim from that of a stakeholder to that of a driver of the criminal justice system?”
3. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to extract the judgments whereins become underlined the principles with respect to making of orders of composition, based upon the making of compromise(s) amongst the concerned.
4. Be that as it may, some of the Hon’ble Benches of this Court, yet have proceeded to make order(s) for composition of offences, through the invocation of jurisdiction envisaged under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is now substituted by Section 528, as, embodied in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’). The said orders of composition become recorded on the basis of a piecemeal compromise becoming arrived at amongst the concerned or become passed upon a compromise, whereins, only some of the accused are mentioned, whereas, the names of the other accused remain omitted to be so mentioned, besides are based upon a compromise, whereins, the names of all the victims’ or of all the complainants’ becomed not included. Therefore, the instant reference has been made to this Court for an answer becoming rendered thereons.
5. Moreover, succor to the said passed orders, appears to become leveraged from a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled as Lovely Salhotra versus State of NCT of Delhi and another, reported in 2017 (3) RCR (Criminal) 85, whereins become carried the herei
