2016 (1) TMI 1478 - HC - Indian Laws

Compromise between the parties during the pendency of the appeal before this Court - compounding of offence - HELD THAT - This Court in the case of SUBE SINGH AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 2013 (4) TMI 983 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT has considered the compounding of offences at the appellate stage and has observed that even when appeal against the conviction is pending before the Sessions Court and parties entered into a compromise, the High Court is vested unparallel power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash criminal proceedings at any stage so as to secure the ends of justice. Similarly, in the case of BAGHEL SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 2014 (5) TMI 1218 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , whereby the accused was convicted under Section 326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, the parties entered into compromise during the pendency of the appeal. In view of the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise and learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar has submitted her report in support of genuineness of the compromise, the present petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of FIR and judgment based on compromise validity.

Analysis:
The petition under Section 482 Cr.PC sought to quash FIR No.225, dated 24.08.2005, and subsequent judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2013 involving multiple accused convicted under various sections of IPC. The basis for seeking quashing was a compromise dated 06.02.2015. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded statements and confirmed the genuineness of the compromise between the parties. Both respondent counsel and State counsel acknowledged the compromise's authenticity. The complainant and other parties involved voluntarily entered into the compromise without any coercion. The court referred to previous case laws highlighting the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash criminal proceedings to secure justice, even during the pendency of an appeal.

The court cited a case where criminal proceedings were quashed post-conviction based on a compromise, emphasizing the importance of securing justice and preventing abuse of the legal process. The judgment also referenced another case where the compounding of an offense at the appellate stage was allowed, leading to the maintenance of peace between the parties. Relying on these precedents and the genuineness of the compromise supported by the Addl. Sessions Judge's report, the court allowed the petition. Consequently, the FIR, judgment of conviction, and order of sentence were quashed, subject to a cost of &8377; 25,000 to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. The court set aside the conviction and sentence upon payment of the cost, emphasizing the importance of upholding compromises made in good faith to maintain peace and harmony among the involved parties.