This judgment allowed an appeal to compound an offence in a matrimonial dispute despite prior conviction, citing a genuine compromise including divorce and alimony payment.
Permission to compound the offence granted; appeal allowed; conviction set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-4872-SB-2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.11.2016
Satwinder Chopra & Ors.
…….Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr.
……..Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present: Mr. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Arshdeep S. Kler, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.
Mr.Surinder Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Jaishree Thakur, J.(Oral)
CRM-36195-2016
CRM-2626-2016 in/and CRA-S-4872-SB-2014 (O&M)
Satyawan 2016.11.29 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-4872-SB-2014
-2-
Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and order dated 30.10.2014. Against the said judgment and order the instant appeal was preferred.
Satyawan 2016.11.29 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-4872-SB-2014
-3-
“16. As regards the doubt expressed by the learned Single Judge whether the inherent power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties can be invoked even if the accused has been held guilty and convicted by the trial Court, we find that in Dr.Arvind Barsaul etc. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 5 SCC 794,
the unfortunate matrimonial dispute was settled after the appellant (husband) had been convicted under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and his appeal was pending before the first appellate court. The Apex Court quashed the criminal proceedings keeping in
Satyawan 2016.11.29 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-4872-SB-2014
-4-
view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice observing that "continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law" and also by invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution. Since the High Court does not possess any power akin to the one under Article 142 of the Constitution, the cited decision cannot be construed to have vested the High Court with such like unparallel power.
17. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice, however, is wide enough to include its power to quash the proceedings in relation to not only the non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code but such a power, in our considered view, is exercisable at any stage save that there is no express bar and invoking of such power is fully justified on facts and circumstances of the case.”
acceptance of the compromise would also lead to denial of complete justice which is the very essence of our justice delivery system. Since there is no statutory embargo against invoking of power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code after conviction of an accused by the trial Court and during pendency of appeal against such conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings
Satyawan 2016.11.29 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CRA-S-4872-SB-2014
-5-
subject to certain safeguards.”
18.11.2016 (JAISHREE THAKUR) sp JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No.
Satyawan 2016.11.29 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether permission to compound the offence can be granted after conviction when appeal is pending in a matrimonial dispute.
Whether the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC applies to non-compoundable offences when a genuine compromise is reached.
Whether the settlement involving dissolution of marriage and payment of compensation warrants quashing of criminal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sube Singh Vs Stae Of HaryanaFollowed¶29
2013(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 102
Dr. Arvind Barasu & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.Explained¶30
Dr.Arvind Barsaul etc. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 5 SCC 794 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Satwinder Chopra & Ors.
State of Punjab
Rajwinder Kaur
Jaishree Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
