Subhash Chand and Others vs State of Haryana

Daya Chaudhary, J.—Appellants namely Subhash Chand, Jai Pal, Jitender, Sandeep, Sharvan and Om Parkash have filed the present appeal before this Court to challenge their conviction under Sections 148/149, 323/325/307/506 IPC and sentence awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. However, during pendency of the appeal, accused/appellant No. 4-Sandeep son of Om Parkash died. Hence, the appeal now survives only qua appellants No. 1 to 3, 5 and 6. The appeal was admitted on 09.09.2005 and the sentence of the appellants were also suspended by this Court. During pendency of the appeal, there was a compromise between the appellants and the complainant and an application was moved before this Court by stating that the parties have compromised their dispute and the complainant has no interest to pursue the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants. Vide order dated 05.11.2012, the appeal was ordered to be listed for final disposal. A direction was issued by this Court on 03.04.2013 to the appellants and the complainant as well as any other affected party to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari for recording of their statements with regard to compromise. A direction was also issued to the Court below to send a report after recording the statements of the parties.

In response to the directions issued by this Court on 03.04.2013, a report along with statements of the parties has been sent by District and Sessions Judge, Rewari. It has been stated by the appellants as well as complainant that the compromise has been effected between them and they are satisfied as the same is without any fear, threat or inducement. Copy of the compromise deed, which has been signed by both the parties, was filed before the Court below along with the status report. It has also been mentioned that accused/appellant No. 4-Sandeep has died during pendency of the appeal and both the parties have decided to resolve their differences and have amicably settled their dispute with the intervention of the relatives and respectables from both the sides. Learned counsel also submits that both the parties are resident of same village and to maintain peace and harmony and cordial relation and to avoid any bad blood between the parties, a compromise has been effected and they want to lead peaceful life in the village. The complainant has specifically stated that he does not want to proceed further with the case and he has no objection, if the appellants are acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the complainant has also affirmed the factum of compromise effected between the parties.

Admittedly, the appellants have been convicted by the Court below and during pendency of the trial, there was a compromise between the appellants and the complainant. The statements of injured have also been recorded. The complainant as well as injured appeared before the Court below and are having no objection in acquittal of the appellants.

The offences which are non-compoundable, cannot be compounded because of bar contained in Section 320 Cr.P.C. This issue came before the larger Bench of Hon''ble the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, in SLP (Crl.) No. 8989 of 2010 along with other connected matters, decided on 24/09/2012, wherein it was held as under:-

The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences u/s 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim''s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of statements recorded before the lower Court, it is clear that the complainant and the injured have no objection even in acquittal of the appellants. Moreover, this Court is having power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings but in the present case, the appellants have been convicted in some of the offences, which are non-compoundable and accordingly, compounding of those offences cannot be there because of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants is upheld but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellants are already on bail.

The appeal is disposed of with modification of sentence but the fine shall remain the same.