High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners in IPS charges of grievous hurt, affray, and voluntarily causing hurt based on a genuine post-crime compromise relied upon under Section 482 CrPC.
Complaint case No.143 of 2018 and all consequential proceedings against petitioners are quashed.
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.
253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12637-2022 Date of decision : 05.09.2022
Jagdev Singh @ Jagga Singh and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Arshdeep S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Madhur Sharma, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1/State
Mr. C.S. Jattana, Advocate for respondent No.2.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of complaint case No.143 of 2018 dated 26.09.2018 titled as 'Buta Singh vs. Jagga Singh and others', registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure P-2).
“Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for seeking quashing of complaint No.143 of 2018 dated 26.09.2018 titled as Buta Singh Vs. Jagga Singh and others, under Sections 307, 326, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, Police
DEEPAK KUMAR 2022.09.05 14:21 I attest to the accuracy of this document
CRM-M-12637-2022
2
Station: Nihal Singh Wala on the basis of compromise dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion.
Ms. A.K. Khurana, DAG, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.
Mr. C.S. Jattana, Advocate appears and files power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.2 and admits the execution of the compromise effected between the parties.
The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court on 11.05.2022 or any other date convenient to the Court for recording their statements as to genuineness of the compromise executed between the parties.
The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is directed to submit a report along with copies of statements of parties on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information as well:-
To come up for further consideration on 15.07.2022. Response, if any, may also be filed by the State on or before the adjourned date. ”
the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, who has reported as under :-
DEEPAK KUMAR 2022.09.05 14:21 I attest to the accuracy of this document
CRM-M-12637-2022
3
“The report sought is as follow:
1. As per complaint, two accused namely Jagga Singh son of Chhotu Singh and Raju son of Chhottu Singh have been arrayed as accused.
2. As per report of Ahlmad, both accused have been appearing in this case and have not been declared proclaimed offender.
3. From the statements of the parties and from the inquiries made from them, the compromise appears to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence
4. There is only one complainant/injured as per complaint and statement of complainant, two accused are facing trial. The compromise has been effected between all accused persons and complainant/injured.”
DEEPAK KUMAR 2022.09.05 14:21 I attest to the accuracy of this document
CRM-M-12637-2022
4
“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 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.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 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.”
| September | 05, 2022 |
(PANKAJ JAIN) |
|---|---|---|
| Dpr | JUDGE | |
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes/No |
|
| Whether reportable | : Yes/No |
DEEPAK KUMAR 2022.09.05 14:21 I attest to the accuracy of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a compromise in cases involving non-compoundable offences under sections 307, 326, 148, 149 of IPC can enable quashing of complaint under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the High Court can invoke inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice when parties have genuinely compromised.
Whether the petitioners should be granted quashing of criminal proceedings based on the post-crime compromise between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramgopal and another vs. The State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶42
Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagdev Singh @ Jagga Singh and another
State of Punjab and another
PANKAJ JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
