Allowed

Mrityunjay Mishra @ Pardeep Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Nov 2022CRM-M/7323/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed to quash an FIR under Section 380 IPC based on a compromise. The Single Judge allowed the petition, stating the offences were private in nature, involved no moral turpitude, and quashing would prevent waste of judicial time.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No. 192 dated 01.10.2017 under Section 380 IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner(s).

Mrityunjay Mishra @ Pardeep Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

CRM-M-7323-2020

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

226

¶5

CRM-M-7323-2020 Date of Decision: 10.11.2022

¶6

Mrityunjay Mishra @ Pardeep Singh and another

¶7

......... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and another

¶10

......... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶12

Present : Mr.Vaneet Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Anurag Bansal, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶15

¶16

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶17

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of FIR No. 192 dated 01.10.2017, under Section 380 IPC, registered at Police Station Lalru, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (Annexure P-1), and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise-deed/affidavits dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure P-2).

¶18

In terms of order dated 18.02.2020, learned JMIC, Dera Bassi has submitted his report dated 06.03.2020. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-

¶19

“ Statements of complainant Lal Singh and accused persons namely Mrityunjay Mishra @ Pardeep Singh and Rahul Mishra @ Nikhil Singh were recorded and following report is submitted:

¶20

ANJU GOEL 2022.11.11 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CRM-M-7323-2020

¶22

-2-

¶23

I. The matter has been compromised between the parties voluntarily in out of their free will and consent and without any pressure or undue influence.

¶24

2. There are only two accused in the present case, as per record.

¶25

3. No accused is declared as proclaimed offender.”

¶26

Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection if the present FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.

¶27

Relying upon its earlier judgments in ' Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 10 SCC 303' and 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688' , a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ' Ramgopal and another Vs. State

¶28

of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC online SC 834' while dealing with power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the disputing parties has held:

¶29

“11. True it is that offences which are ‘noncompoundable’ 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 320Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320Cr.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 320Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482Cr.P.C. The High Court,

¶30

ANJU GOEL 2022.11.11 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

CRM-M-7323-2020

¶32

-3-

¶33

keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

¶34

12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non- compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.

¶35

13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-

¶36

ANJU GOEL 2022.11.11 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶37

CRM-M-7323-2020

¶38

-4-

¶39

ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.3 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).

¶40

14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a ‘settlement’ through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.”

¶41

From the perusal of the enclosed FIR, report of the Trial Court

¶42

and compromise arrived between the parties, it transpires that contesting parties have amicably resolved their issue, thus, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. The alleged offences are of predominantly private in nature and no moral turpitude or interest of public at large is involved. There appears to be no chance of conviction, the

¶43

ANJU GOEL 2022.11.11 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶44

CRM-M-7323-2020

¶45

-5-

¶46

continuance of the proceedings would just waste valuable judicial time and it is well-known fact that courts are already over burdened.

¶47

In view of above facts and circumstances, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed. FIR No. 192 dated 01.10.2017, under Section 380 IPC, registered at Police Station Lalru, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (Anneuxre P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).

¶48

( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE

¶49

10.11.2022

¶50

anju

¶51

Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶52

ANJU GOEL 2022.11.11 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Mrityunjay Mishra @ Pardeep Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrityunjay Mishra @ Pardeep Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Didar Singh Vs Bhajan Singh

Kulwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jasmeet Singh Vs Gurbax Singh Behal

Manisha Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sukhdarshan Jain Vs Naveen Kumar