Jagdeep Bhandari vs State (Union Territory Chandigarh) and Another

S.S. Saron, J.—The petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 92 dated 25.6.2006 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh along with subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.8.2010 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh.

The petitioner was tried for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class vide order dated 10.8.2010 (Annexure-P.2) has convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties have arrived at a compromise on 25.8.2010 (Annexure-P.3) in which the complainant has submitted that he shall have no objection if the FIR along with all consequential proceedings against the petitioner is quashed.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh on 10.8.2010 is pending. The proceedings after an order of conviction are normally not to be quashed. The proper course for the petitioner is to argue his case before the appellate Court on merit. However, in case he is found guilty, the fact that the matter has been compromised is a factor to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing him.

This Court in the case of Joginder Ram and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2009 (1) RCR (Cri.) 495 held that in a case during appeal where parties have entered into a compromise and filed a petition before this Court for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise then the parties ought to first approach the first Appellate Court, which is competent to grant any relief including release of accused on probation on the basis of compromise. Besides, the Petitioners would have a legal right to approach this Court if any adverse order is still made against them. Reliance was placed on the case of Ramachandra Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, . In the said case, the petitioner therein was convicted for an offence under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. During pendency of the appeal, the parties had entered into a compromise. On the basis of the compromise, the appellant therein was acquitted of the offence u/s 323 IPC. In the said case, the complainant-wife had filed an affidavit clearly stating that she had no wish to pursue the case. Besides, she had also re-married by then. Though the conviction u/s 498-A was directed to be maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment of one year was ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone. One of the appellants therein was also released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, so as to ensure that his job may not be put to jeopardy.

Therefore, in case of compromise during the pendency of the appeal the proceedings are not normally to be quashed and the fact that the parties have compromised their dispute is a factor which is to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing in case a finding of guilt is recorded and the appellant is convicted for the offences attributed to him.

In the above-noted circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may pursue his remedies in accordance with law where his appeal is pending.