Madal Lal vs State of Punjab and Others

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of petitioner, namely, Madan Lal for quashing of FIR No. 422 dated 15.11.2008, registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar as well as judgment of conviction dated 12.08.2013 passed by the JMIC, Jalandhar. The petitioner faced trial and ultimately, vide judgment dated 12.08.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 2000/- with default clause. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar which is still pending.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties in order to maintain peace and harmony in the relations and the complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR and others proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel further submits that the amount in dispute has already been paid to the complainant and no other case is pending against them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court titled as Sube Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, to contend that even after conviction, the accused is entitled to get the proceedings quashed on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has also affirmed the factum of compromise.

Notice of motion was issued on 03.04.2014 and vide order dated 12.12.2014, the parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 16.12.2014 for recording of their statements with regard to compromise. The Appellate Court was also directed to send a report as to whether the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any pressure from either side.

In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the parties appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and accordingly their statements were recorded. A report has been sent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, wherein, the factum of compromise has been affirmed. The parties to the dispute have specifically stated in their statements that the compromise has been effected between them and now they do not want to proceed further with the proceedings. The petitioner has specifically stated in his statement that he has paid the settled amount to the complainant and nothing is due against him. The complainant has specifically stated in his statement that he has no objection in quashing of the criminal proceedings and even in the acquittal of the petitioner. It has also been mentioned therein that the compromise is as per their free will and without any pressure from either side.

On perusal of the statements recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, it is clear that the dispute between the parties has been settled.

Since the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and the complainant has no objection in quashing of the criminal proceedings including the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court on the basis of compromise.

A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, has also observed that the proceedings can be quashed even in case of non-compoundable offences, in case, the compromise is there between the parties. The observations of this Court are reproduced as under :-

"Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320(9) - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 - Compounding of offences which are non-compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. - Offence non-compoundable, but parties entering into compromise-High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice - This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone....." 10. The Hon''ble Apex court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, has laid down that compounding of offence and quashing of criminal proceedings are two separate things and are not interchangeable. It has also been mentioned that two powers are distinct and different but ultimate consequence may be the same. It has also been held that where the offender and victim have settled their dispute, the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C is competent to quash the criminal proceedings even in case of non-compoundable offences. No doubt, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are to be invoked sparingly and not when the offences are heinous, serious, of mental depravity or like murder, rape, dacoity etc. The Apex Court has held as under :-

"It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided.

Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceedings or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed."

The aforesaid decision in Gian Singh''s case (supra) finds support with the view taken by a five-Judge Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh''s case (supra).

Keeping in view the statements of the parties as well as the fact that now the complainant has no objection in quashing of the criminal proceedings arising therefrom, continuation of proceedings would not only be mere wastage of the time of the Court but it would also not be in the interest of both the parties. This Court has power to quash the criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise.

While exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as well as keeping in view the fact that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties as per their free will and there is no pressure from either side, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 422 dated 15.11.2008, registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar as well as judgment of conviction dated 12.08.2013 passed by the JMIC, Jalandhar qua, petitioner, namely, Madan Lal are hereby quashed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges accordingly.