Allowed

Bassan Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2023CRR/3216/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A post-conviction compromise concerning hurt and house-trespass offences was accepted in the circumstances of this case. The Court allowed revision, set aside the convictions, sentences and subsequent proceedings, and discharged the bail bonds. The fine was forfeited to the State.

What did the court decide?

Convictions, sentences and subsequent proceedings set aside; petitioners' bail bonds discharged. Fine forfeited to the State.

Bassan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

��

��

��

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

201-3

¶6

CRR-3216-2011 Date of Decision: 04.12.2023

¶7

Bassan Singh and another

......Pe��oners

Vs.

State of Haryana

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶13

Present: Mr. Kulbir Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶14

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, A.A.G., Haryana.

¶15

*****

¶16

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶17

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta-on	Sec-ons
26	14.01.2	000 Kalanwali	323,324,326,452,34 IPC
Criminal before tria	Case l Court	No. 375-1 of 2000/2007 Date of Decision: 09.12.2	009
Criminal before A Court	Appeal ppellate	No. 216 of 2010, Sessions Date of Decision: 31.10.2	Judge, Sirsa 011

¶18

Appellants, who stand convicted by the trial Court as well as Sessions Court for the commission of offence punishable under Sec�ons 452, 323, 324, 326 read with Sec�on 34 IPC, have come up before this Court in revision pe��on against the order of convic�on of sentence.

¶19

1.A A8er convic�on from the trial Court, Sessions Court modified the sentence in the following manner:-

¶20

Sec-ons	Convic-on by trial Court	Modified by the Sessions Court
452 read with Sec�on 34 IPC	R.I for six months and fine of Rs. 300/-	R.I. for three months and fine of Rs. 300/-
323 read with Sec�on 34 IPC	R.I for one month and fine of Rs. 100/-	R.I. for fi8een days and fine of Rs. 100/-
324 read with Sec�on 34 IPC	R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 300/-	R.I. for three months and fine of Rs. 300/-
326 read with Sec�on	R.I. for three years and	R.I for one and half year and fine of
34 IPC	fine of Rs. 1000/-	Rs. 1000/-

¶21

During the pendency of present revision pe��on, the pe��oners/convicts and the

¶22

JYOTI 2023.12.12 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

��

��

��

complainant/aggrieved party/vic�m entered into compromise through Media�on and Concilia�on Centre of this Court vide se;lement agreement dated 30.05.2023.

¶27

Vide order dated 27.07.2023, this court had asked the par�es to appear before the concerned court and had asked the said court to give its report as per the format. Joint report has been filed in CRA-S-3062-SB-2011, which reads as follows:

¶28

Name Court	of the repor�ng District and Se	ssions Judge, Sirsa.
FIR No	. Dated Police Sta�on	Sec�ons
26	14.01.2000 Kalanwali	323,324,325 IPC
1.	Names of the complainant/ vic�ms(s)/ aggrieved persons(s)	Complainant: Surjit Kaur wife of Shri Joginder Singh Injured/vic�m: Jagdev Singh son of Shri Joginder Singh
2.	Dates on which the statement(s) of the complainant/ vic�ms(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) were re- corded	16.08.2023
3.	Has the iden�ty of the com- plainant/ vic�ms(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified?	Yes Copy of Aadhar Card has bee obtained and they have been iden�fied by their counsel in their respec�ve statement.
4.	Whether all the vic�ms/ all the aggrieved persons have com- promised the ma;er?	Yes
5.	Is there pressure, threat, or co- ercion upon the vic�m(s)/ag- grievedperson(s)/complainant?	No
6.	Names of the accused person(s)	Bassan Singh son of Shri Harnek Singh and Gurpreet Singh son of Shri Baldev Singh
7.	Dates on which the statement(s) of the accused persons(s) recor- ded	16.08.2023
8.	Whether all the accused have compromised the ma;er? If no, then the names of the accused who have compromised.	Yes
9.	Whether proclama�on proceed- ings are pending against any ac- cused?	No As per joint affidavit dated 16.08.2023 of the accused persons and report dated 16.08.2023 submi;ed by the inves�ga�ng officer.
10.	Has the police report been filed or not?	Yes The case was decided vide judgment dated 09.12.2009 passed by the Court of Shri Amarjit Singh, the then learned JMFC, Dab- wali and accused were convicted.

¶29

JYOTI 2023.12.12 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶30

�� 

¶31

		An appeal against the above said judgment was partly allowed vide judgment dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Court of Shri Subhash Goyal, the then learned Sessions Judge,Sirsa.
11.	No�ce of accusa�on /Charges have been framed or not?	Yes The charge was framed vide order dated 30.08.2000 passed by the Court of Shri Gulab Singh, the then learned SDJM, Dab- wali. The case was decided vide judgment dated 09.12.2009 passed by the Court of Shri Amarjit Singh, the then learned JMFC, Dab- wali and accused were convicted. An appeal against the above-said judgment was partly allowed vide judgment dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Court of Shri Subhash Goyal, the then learned Sessions Judge,Sirsa.
12.	Sec�ons of statutes invoked in the ma;er	Sec�ons 323, 324, 326 and 452 of Indian Penal Code read with Sec�on 34 of Indian Penal Code as per charge framed vide or- der dated 30.08.2000 passed by the Court of Shri Gulab Singh, the then learned SDJM,Dabwali.
13.	Whether the court is sa�sfied with the genuineness of the compromise?	Yes

¶32

As per report received from the Judicial Magistrate, on 16.08.2023, complainant Surjit Kaur and Jagdev Singh appeared before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabwali, Sirsa and made the following statement under oath:

¶33

“Statement of Surjit Kaur wife of Shri Joginder Singh, Age: 75 years, resident of village Kewal, Police Sta�on: Kalanwali, District Sirsa. ONSA Stated that I have compromised the present ma�er with accused persons namely Bassan Singh son of Harnek Singh and Gurpreet Singh son of Baldev Singh. Further, I have compromised with my own free will and with free consent without any coercion or undue influence. I have no objec#on if the present FIR/case be quashed against the said accused persons”.

¶34

AND

¶35

“Statement of Jagdev Singh son of Shri Joginder Singh, Age: 52 years, resident of village Kewal, Police Sta�on: Kalanwali, District Sirsa. ONSA Stated that I have compromised the present ma�er with accused persons namely Bassan Singh son of Harnek Singh and Gurpreet Singh son of Baldev Singh. Further,

¶36

JYOTI 2023.12.12 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

��

��

��

I have compromised with my own free will and with free consent without any coercion or undue influence. I have no objec#on if the present FIR/case be quashed against the said accused persons”.

¶41

It would be relevant to refer to the judicial precedents where based on the compromise, the convic�ons were set aside:

¶42

a). In Ram Prasad and Another v. State of U;ar Pardesh, Cr.A Nos. 308-309 of 1980, decided on April 21, 1980, Hon’ble Supreme Court converted the convic�on from 307 IPC to 324 IPC and a8er that based on compromise, accepted the compounding of offence under sec�on 324 IPC and acqui;ed the appellants.

¶43

b). In Ramji Lal v. State of Haryana, (1983) 1 SCC 368, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a ma;er arising against the convic�on under sec�on 325 IPC, held,

¶44

[5]. All the offences for which the appellants are convicted are compoundable and the compromise can be entered into with the permission of the court. Looking to the chastened aNtude of the accused and the commendable aNtude of the injured complainant, in order to restore harmony in the society, we accept the compromise. We grant permission to enter into the compromise and accept the same. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the convic�on and sentence imposed on both the appellants. If they are on bail, their bail-bonds will be cancelled. If they are in jail, they will be released from the jail forthwith.

¶45

c). In Mohd. Rafi v. State of U.P., 1998(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 455, Supreme Court, the convict had gone to Hon’ble Supreme Court against his convic�on by the trial Court under Sec�ons 323 and 325 of IPC, which was upheld by Sessions and High Court. A8er that, the convict and the vic�m entered into an out-of-court compromise. Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed the par�es' affidavits filed in support of the compromise and observed that par�es had willingly and voluntarily se;led the ma;er. To maintain good rela�ons, Hon’ble Supreme Court granted permission to them to compound the said offenses and order the acqui;al.

¶46

d). In Parameswari v. Vennila, (2000) 10 SCC 348, the appellants before Hon'ble Supreme Court had been convicted under Sec�on 494 read with Sec�on 109 of IPC. A8er that, they arrived at a se;lement with the complainant, in the presence of panchayatdars of their village, and placed on record the duly signed compromise, and par�es filed a joint applica�on for permission to compound the offences. While observing that the offence involved was compoundable with the wife's consent and permission of the Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted permission to compound the JYOTI offence, and resultantly the appellants stood acqui;ed of the offence for which they 2023.12.12 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

��

��

��

have been held guilty.

¶51

e). In M.D. Balal Mian v. State of Bihar, 2001 AIR (SCW) 5190, out of three convicts, one was convicted under Sec�on 376 IPC, and the other two were convicted only under Sec�ons 325 & 323 of IPC. A8er the High Court confirmed the convic�on and sentence, all three convicts approached Hon’ble Supreme Court. Although Hon’ble Supreme Court did not find any scope for gran�ng special leave by the convict challenging his convic�on under sec�on 376 IPC, however, granted the other permission to the other two convicts to compound the offences under Sec�on 320 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code and acqui;ed both of them.

¶52

f). In Vuyyuru Ramachandra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 AIR (SCW) 2396, the appellant had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court against upholding the convic�on under sec�on 354 IPC. The vic�m of molesta�on came to terms with the convict and applied to compound the offence. Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed such applica�on for compounding and resultantly acqui;ed the appellant under Sec�on 320 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶53

g). In Ramachandra Singh v. State of Bihar, 2003(10) SCC 234, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶54

[5]. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the state and taken into, considera�on the fact and circumstances of the case. In view of the compromise it appears that grievance, if any, of the complainant KamleshKumari Devi is over. Indeed in view of the compromise the accused appellants stand acqui;ed of the offence under Sec�on 323 Indian Penal Code. In such circumstances the sentence passed by the trial Court and maintained by the High Court deserves to be modified so far as offence under Sec�on 498A Indian Penal Code is concerned.

¶55

[6]. The appeal is partly allowed. The convic�on of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Sec�on 498A Indian Penal Code is maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment passed on them for offence under Sec�on 498-A is reduced to the period already undergone. In so far as appellant No. 3 is concerned, in our opinion, it will meet the ends of jus�ce if he is dealt with under Sec�on 4 of the Proba�on of Offenders Act, 1958, and released on proba�on of good conduct. The sentence of imprisonment passed on appellant No. 3 is set aside and it is directed that he shall be released on his entering into a bond with one surety in an amount of Rs. 5000/- to appear before the trial Court and receive sentence on being called upon during a period of one year and in the mean�me to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

¶56

h). In K. Kandasamy v. K.P.M.V.P. Chandrasekaran, (2005) 4 SCC 349, based on the

¶57

JYOTI 2023.12.12 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

��

��

��

compromise, Hon’ble Supreme Court acqui;ed the appellants/convicts of the offence under Sec�on 500 Indian Penal Code.

¶62

i). In Khursheed and others v. State of U.P, Appeal (crl.) 1302 of 2007, decided on 289-2007, the appellants were convicted by Trial Court under sec�ons 325, 323 read with 34 IPC. Their appeal against convic�on was dismissed by the Sessions Court and revision pe��on was also dismissed by High Court. The convicts approached the Apex Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court held,

¶63

[12]. An offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under Sec�on 325 IPC is covered by sub- sec�on (2) of Sec�on 320 of the Code. It is thus clear that an offence punishable under Sec�on 325 IPC is also compounded with the permission of the Court.

¶64

[13]. The par�es have compounded the offences. As stated in the compromise deed, Gurfan Ahmad, complainant and his mother Kulsoom @ Bhoori (injured) did not want any ac�on against the appellants (accused). The par�es are neighbours, their houses are situated adjacent to each other and they have been living peacefully for last many years and there is no dispute among them. It is further stated that to con�nue sweet rela�onship and harmony, complainant side does not want to take any ac�on against the accused. A prayer is, therefore, made to accept the compromise.

¶65

[14]. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and considering the Deed of Compromise and having heard learned counsel for the par�es, in our opinion, ends of jus�ce would be met if we grant necessary permission for compounding an offence punishable under Sec�on 325 read with Sec�on 34 IPC as required by sub-sec�on (2) of Sec�on 320 of the Code. The offence punishable under Sec�on 323 IPC has already been compounded by the par�es.

¶66

[15]. Sub-sec�on (8) of Sec�on 320 states that the compounding of offence under the sec�on shall have an effect of acqui;al of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. The resultant effect of compounding of offences would be that the accused should be acqui;ed. In other words, once the offences have been compounded and the requisite permission is granted by the Court, the accused must be acqui;ed.

¶67

j). In Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC 794, a8er the convic�on under sec�on 498-A IPC, the vic�m wife and the convict husband had compromised their disputes and sought seNng aside of convic�on based on the compromise. Hon’ble Supreme Court holds as follows,

¶68

[10]. We have heard learned counsel for the par�es at length. The par�es have compromised and the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat categorically submi;ed that she does not want to prosecute the appellants. Even otherwise also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of jus�ce, in our opinion, con�nua�on of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. We, in exercise of our power under Ar�cle 142 of

¶69

JYOTI 2023.12.12 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

��

��

��

the Cons�tu�on, deem it proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants emana�ng from the FIR lodged under sec�on 498A Indian Penal Code. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶74

k). In Manoj & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr. A No. 1530 of 2008, Hon’ble Supreme Court, based on compromise, accepted the compounding of the offence under sec�on 324 IPC and acqui;ed the appellants.

¶75

l). In Md. Abdul Sufan Laskar v. State of Assam, (2008) 9 SCC 333, based on a compromise, Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the convic�on and sentence under sec�on 324 IPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court took similar views in Mathura Singh v. State of U.P., 2009(13) SCC 420 and in Gampa Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh thr. Public Prosecutor, 2008(sup) Cri. L.R. 440: Law Finder Doc Id # 521064.

¶76

m). In C.Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2009 13 SCC 790, a8er the convic�on and sentence under sec�on 302 IPC, the deceased's family had compromised the ma;er with the accused. Rejec�ng the compromise, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that once the par�es have se;led their disputes, they could live in peace, but that cannot be a ground to pass a judgment of acqui;al.

¶77

n). In Gampa Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Law Finder Doc Id # 521064; 2008(1) OriLR839, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶78

[3]. The Trial Court convicted the sole appellant under Sec�on 326 of the Indian Penal Code [hereina8er referred to as "I.P.C."] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rupees one thousand; in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. On appeal being preferred, the Sessions Court confirmed the convic�on and sentence. When the ma;er was taken to the High Court in revision, the convic�on and sentence under Sec�on 326 I.P.C. have been set aside and the appellant has been convicted under Sec�on 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Before this Court, a joint pe��on of compromise has been filed wherein it has been stated that the par�es have se;led their disputes; as such, they be permi;ed to compound the offence. In our view, the prayer is just and must be granted. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the convic�on and sentence awarded against the appellant are set aside, in view of the compounding.

¶79

o). In Hirabhai Jhaverbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 6 SCC 688, permiNng the par�es to compromise the convic�on under sec�on 324 IPC, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, “The injured complainant and two other injured are permi;ed to compound the offence punishable under Sec�on 324 Indian Penal Code. In view of sub-sec�on (8) of

¶80

JYOTI 2023.12.12 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

��

��

��

Sec�on 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the composi�on of offence under sec�on 324 Indian Penal Code shall have the effect of an acqui;al of the appellant with whom the offence has been compounded.”

¶85

p). In Surat Singh v. State of U;aranchal (Now U;arakhand), 2012(12) SCC 772, Hon’ble Supreme Court, based on compromise, permi;ed the par�es to compound their offences under sec�on 354 and 506 IPC.

¶86

q). in Jeetu Vs. State of ChhaNsgarh, 2013 11 SCC 489 it is the duty of the appellate Court to arrive at its own independent conclusion a8er examining the material on record. This exercise has however to be conducted a8er considering the material on record. There is no power conferred by the Code either on the appellate Court/revisional Court to acquit an accused convicted for a commission of a non-compoundable offence only on the ground that compromise has been entered into between the convict and the informant/complainant.

¶87

r). In Dasan v. State of Kerala, 2014:INSC:54 [Para 10], (2014) 12 SCC 666, the Hon’ble Supreme Court converted the convic�on from 326 IPC to 325 IPC and, based on compromise, accepted the compounding of the offence under sec�on 325 IPC and acqui;ed the appellant.

¶88

s). In Padmalayan v. Sarasan, (2014) 13 SCC 798, Hon’ble Supreme Court permi;ed post-convic�on compromise for offence under sec�on 324 IPC.

¶89

t). In Sathiyamoorthy v. State, 2014(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 867, a8er observing that a8er the compromise they have been staying peacefully in the village. It is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶90

[6]. Offences under Sec�ons 341 and 325 are compoundable. In view of the se;lement they can be permi;ed to be compounded. However, offences under Sec�ons 148 and 149 of the IPC are not compoundable. Hence, permission to compound them cannot be granted. However, since the accused and the vic�m have entered into a compromise, we feel that it would be in the interest of both sides to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused under Sec�ons 325 and 341 of the IPC to the sentence already undergone.

¶91

[7]. In Ram Lal and anr. v. State of J & K, 2000(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 92 : (1999)2 SCC 213 the accused were convicted for offence under Sec�on 326 of the IPC, which is noncompoundable. Looking to the fact that the par�es had arrived at a se;lement and vic�m had no grievance, this Court reduced the sentence for the offence under Sec�on 326 to sentence already undergone by the appellants-accused. We are inclined to follow similar course.

¶92

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The offences under

¶93

JYOTI 2023.12.12 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

��

��

��

Sec�ons 341 and 325 of the IPC, for which the appellants are convicted, are permi;ed to be compounded because they are compoundable. The appellants are acqui;ed of the said offences. The appellants are stated to have undergone more than six months imprisonment. So far as offences under Sec�ons 148 and 149 of the IPC are concerned, the convic�on of the appellants for the said offences is reduced to the sentence already undergone by them subject to the appellants paying L 30,000/- as compensa�on to vic�m-Murugesan. Compensa�on be paid within three months from the date of this judgment.

¶98

u). In Deva Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2014:INSC:505 [Para 5], (2014) 13 SCC 275, the appellant was convicted by Trial Court under sec�on 420 IPC. His appeal against convic�on was dismissed by the Sessions Court and revision pe��on was also dismissed by High Court. The convict approached the Apex Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court held,

¶99

[5]. We are informed that out of two years imprisonment the appellant has undergone six months imprisonment. Offence under Sec�on 420 of the IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court by the person who is cheated. Since the par�es are related to each other and they have decided to accord a quietus to their disputes and live peacefully, we permit them to compound the offence. Hence, the offence under Sec�on 420 of the IPC for which the appellant was convicted is compounded because it is compoundable with the permission of the court. The appellant is acqui;ed of the said charge.

¶100

v). In Ravinder Kaur v. Anil Kumar, 2015:INSC:301 , (2015) 8 SCC 286, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a ma;er arising out of convic�on, permi;ed the compounding of offence under sec�on 494 IPC.

¶101

w). In Shankar Yadav v. State of ChhaNsgarh, Cr.A 982 of 2017 Law Finder Doc Id # 877762, Hon’ble Supreme Court while permiNng post-convic�on compromise, by holding the offence to fall under sec�on 324 IPC, held,

¶102

[8]. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reasons to refuse permission to the par�es who have compromised the offences which were compoundable under the Code as it stood in 1998. If it is so, compounding can be permi;ed and the appellants-accused can be acqui;ed in view of Sec�on 320 (8) of the Cr.P.C., which expressly enacts that where the composi�on of an offence under this sec�on is recorded by the court, it shall have effect of an acqui;al of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. We order accordingly.

¶103

x). In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013:PHHC:026805-DB [Para 17, 21], 2013 (4)

¶104

RCR (Cri) 102, a Division Bench of this Court holds,

¶105

[17]. The magnitude of inherent jurisdic�on exercisable by the High Court under Sec�on 482 Criminal Procedure Code with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of

¶106

JYOTI 2023.12.12 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

��

��

��

jus�ce, however, is wide enough to include its power to quash the proceedings in rela�on to not only the non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Sec�on 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 jus�fied on facts and circumstances of the case.

¶111

[21]. In the light of these peculiar facts and circumstances where not only the par�es but their close rela�ves (including daughter and son-in-law of respondent No. 2) have also supported the amicable se;lement, we are of the considered view that the nega�on of the compromise would disharmonize the rela�onship and cause a permanent ri8 amongst the family members who are living together as a joint family. Nonacceptance of the compromise would also lead to denial of complete jus�ce which is the very essence of our jus�ce delivery system. Since there is no statutory embargo against invoking of power under Sec�on 482 Criminal Procedure Code a8er convic�on of an accused by the trial Court and during pendency of appeal against such convic�on, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdic�on and strike down the proceedings subject to certain safeguards.

¶112

In the present case, the offence under Sec�ons 324, 326, 452 IPC are not compoundable under Sec�on 320 CrPC. However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecu�on qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

¶113

In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003(4) SCC 675, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [14]. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Sec�on 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by rela�ves of her husband. Sec�ons 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his rela�ves who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her rela�ves to sa�sfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter-produc�ve and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of jus�ce would prevent women from se;ling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code.

¶114

[15]. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Sec�on 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Sec�on 482 of the Code.

¶115

In Saloni Rupam Bhar�ya v. Rupam Prahlad Bhar�ya, 2015(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 172, a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶116

[4] …It was submi;ed by learned counsel for the par�es that in the light of the above subsequent developments especially the fact that the marriage between the par�es itself stands

¶117

JYOTI 2023.12.12 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

��

��

��

dissolved by a decree passed by a competent court, nothing really remained between the par�es to be addressed and that the convic�on of the respondent-husband under Sec�on 498A of the Indian Penal Code could be set aside. We see no reason to decline that prayer. In the circumstances, therefore, and in the light of the fact that the par�es have successfully nego�ated an amicable se;lement sinking and resolving all their differences and disputes and finding a las�ng solu�on on all the outstanding issues between themselves, we see no reason why the convic�on recorded by the courts below and the sentence of imprisonment �ll the rising of the Court, which the respondent has already undergone should con�nue to blemish the respondent-husband. We accordingly set aside the judgment and order of convic�on of the respondent under Sec�on 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶122

In Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr.A 1489 of 2012 , decided on

¶123

29.09.2021, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶124

[11]. True it is that offences which are ‘non-compoundable’ cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Sec�on 320 Cr.P.C. Any such a;empt by the court would amount to altera�on, addi�on and modifica�on of Sec�on 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Sec�on 320 Cr.P.C., which may jus�fy its wider interpreta�on and include such offences in the docket of ‘compoundable’ offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdic�on to compound an offence within the framework of Sec�on 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Sec�on 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for jus�fiable reasons can press Sec�on 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of jus�ce.

¶125

[12]. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that par�es have amicably se;led their dispute and the vic�m has willingly consented to the nullifica�on of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Sec�on 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequen�al effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and therea8er adopt a pragma�c approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not �nker with or paralyze the very object of the administra�on of criminal jus�ce system.

¶126

[13]. It appears to us those criminal proceedings involving nonheinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespec�ve of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against convic�on. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering jus�ce. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful excep�ons. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck postconvic�on, the High Court ought to exercise such discre�on with rec�tude, keeping

¶127

JYOTI 2023.12.12 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

��

��

��

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 a8er the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Sec�on 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of jus�ce. There can be no hard and fast line constric�ng the power of the High Court to do substan�al jus�ce. A restric�ve construc�on of inherent powers under Sec�on 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious jus�ce, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injus�ce. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cau�ously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab &Ors. [(2014) 6 SCC 466, ¶ 29], and Laxmi Narayan [(2019) 5 SCC 688, ¶ 15] .

¶132

[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 ma;ers concerning public policy, cannot be construed between two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the poten�al 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 ‘se;lement’ through duress, threats, social boyco;s, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.”

¶133

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, I am of the view that for the be;erment of the par�es, who now buried their differences, the judgment of convic�on and order of sentence all subsequent proceedings qua the pe��oner can be set aside.

¶134

Given above, because of the compromise, and in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case the above cap�oned judgment(s) of convic�on and order of sentence passed by the trial Court as well as appellate court and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside. However, the fine amount is forfeited to the State as cost incurred by it. The bail bonds of the pe��oners are accordingly discharged. All pending applica�on(s), if any, stand closed.

¶135

The present revision pe��on stands allowed. All pending applica�on(s), if any, stand closed.

¶136

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 04.12.2023 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶137

JYOTI 2023.12.12 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Bassan Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bassan Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana

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

Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Arun Mahajan Vs State of Haryana

Arun Mahajan Vs State of Haryana

Vikash Kumar Alias Vikas Vs State of Haryana

Jagdev Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Surjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Haryana