Allowed

Gurmeet Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Nov 2022CRM-M/8269/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Thispetition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of an FIR involving IPC offences on the ground of a genuine compromise. The High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, held that private nature offences with settlement warrant quashing, and allowed the petition to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 0200 dated 23.05.2020 and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Gurmeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Others — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

CRM-M-8269-2021

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

227

¶5

CRM-M-8269-2021 Date of Decision: 09.11.2022

¶6

Gurmeet Singh and others

¶7

......... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

......... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶12

Present : Mr.J.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

Mr. Goldy Jakhar, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

¶15

¶16

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶17

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of FIR No. 0200 dated 23.05.2020, under Sections 353, 186, 332, 323, 324, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines Batala, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1), and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromisedeed/affidavits dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P-2).

¶18

In terms of order dated 22.02.2021, learned JMIC, Batala has submitted his report dated 31.03.2021 The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-

¶19

“It is further submitted that statement of Investigating Officer/SI Narjit Singh no. 2481/Btl, posted at PS Civil Lines, Batala has been recorded on 25.03.2021, who submitted that four persons have been arraigned as accused in the present FIR namely, Gurmeet Singh son of Lakhbir Singh, Mangal Singh son of Jaswant Singh, residents of Village Bhagian,

¶20

ANJU GOEL 2022.12.05 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CRM-M-8269-2021

¶22

-2-

¶23

Sekhwan, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, Randhir Singh son of Ram Singh, r/o Village Kohar, Dehriwal, District Gurdaspur and Ravinder Singh son of Satnam Singh, r/o Village Bhagian, Sekhwan, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. No PO proceedings are pending against any of the party.

¶24

10. In compliance with aforesaid order dated 22.02.2021 of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, point wise report is submitted as hereunder

¶25

(1). In view of the statements got recorded by both the parties, this court is satisfied that compromise effected between them is genuine, which is not the result of any pressure or coercion. (ii). Four persons have been arraigned as accused in the present FIR namely, Gurmeet Singh son of Lakhbir Singh, Mangal Singh son of Jaswant Singh, residents of Village Bhagian, Sekhwan, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, Randhir Singh son of Ram Singh, r/o Village Kohar, Dehriwal, District Gurdaspur and Ravinder Singh son of Satnam Singh, r/o Village Bhagian, Sekhwan, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. (iii) No PO proceedings are pending against any of the party.” Learned counsel for the State submits that he has no objection

¶26

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 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:

¶28

“11. True it is that offences which are ‘noncompoundable’ cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section

¶29

ANJU GOEL 2022.12.05 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

CRM-M-8269-2021

¶31

-3-

¶32

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, 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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

ANJU GOEL 2022.12.05 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶36

CRM-M-8269-2021

¶37

-4-

¶38

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 extraordinary 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).

¶39

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

¶40

ANJU GOEL 2022.12.05 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶41

CRM-M-8269-2021

¶42

-5-

¶43

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.”

¶44

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

¶45

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 predominantly of private in nature and no moral turpitude or interest of public at large is involved. There appears to be no chance of conviction, the continuance of the proceedings would just waste valuable judicial time and it is well-known fact that courts are already over burdened.

¶46

In view of above facts and circumstances, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed.

¶47

FIR No. 0200 dated 23.05.2020, under Sections 353, 186, 332, 323, 324, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines Batala, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur (Anneuxre P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).

¶48

( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE

¶49

09.11.2022

¶50

anju

¶51

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

¶52

ANJU GOEL 2022.12.05 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Gurmeet Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmeet Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Rekha Rani and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rabab Singh @ Babar & Others Vs State of Punjab & Others

Harish Kumar Vs Harmeet Singh

Didar Singh Vs Bhajan Singh

Kulwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kuldip Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.