2023 (5) TMI 1280 - HC - Indian Laws

Application filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the applicant - compromise between the parties was arrived at between them to their satisfaction and the contesting parties were satisfied by the said compromise - Permissibility of the piecemeal compromise between the parties - Expression of word Evidence in Section 319 Cr.P.C. Permissibility of the piecemeal compromise between the parties - HELD THAT - The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by the distorted perceptions and is not slave to anything except to caution and circumspection the standard of which the Court sets before it in exercise of such plenary and unflattered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the end of justice. No embargo be in a shape of Section 320 Cr.PC.(Cr.P.C.) or any other such curtailment can whittle down the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. Similarly when the Revisional Court considered it has been clearly mentioned that the offence is not compoundable offence under the provision of Section 320 Cr.P.C and therefore it has been mentioned that said compromise have got no bearing in the offence. This proposition of law is unswallowable and cannot be accepted. The scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is in much wider than that of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Expression of word Evidence in Section 319 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - For the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the use of word evidence means material that has come before the court during an inquiry or trial by it and not otherwise. If from the evidence led in the trial the court is of the opinion that a person not accused before it has also committed the offence the court may summon such person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The word evidence therefore has to be understood in its widest sense both at the stage of trial and even at the stage of inquiry as used under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court therefore should be understood to have the power to proceed against any person after summoning him on the basis of any such material as brought forth before it. The duty and obligation of the court becomes more onerous to invoke such powers cautiously on such material after evidence has been led during trial as well as the material collected during investigation or even in an inquiry. Section 319 Cr.P.C. significantly uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200 201 202 Cr.P.C.; and under Section 398 Cr.P.C. are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Cr.P.C. Materials coming before the Court in course of such enquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences for the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the chargesheet - the word evidence in Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial. There are no hesitation to quash both the orders of learned A.C.M.M-III Kanpur Nagar dated 22.11.2022 allowing the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. by the Public Prosecutor and when the same was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge Kanpur Nagar by way of Criminal Revision No. 390 of 2022 the same was rejected confirming the orders of learned A.C.M.M-III Kanpur Nagar - present application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. hereby stands allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Permissibility of a piecemeal compromise between parties.
2. Interpretation of the term 'Evidence' under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Summary:

Issue 1: Permissibility of a piecemeal compromise between parties

The court emphasized that compromise is crucial for social harmony and should be encouraged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including *Lovely Salhotra* and *Jayraj Singh Digvijay Singh Rana*, to assert that even a partial compromise is permissible. The court noted that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are broader than those under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and can be used to quash proceedings if it serves the ends of justice. The court found that the compromise between the parties on 04.10.2019 and 10.10.2019 was valid and should have been considered by the lower courts.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the term 'Evidence' under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in *Hardeep Singh* to clarify that the term 'evidence' in Section 319 Cr.P.C. includes both evidence recorded during trial and material collected during the investigation. The court stated that the compromise deed, although not exhibited during the trial, should be considered as evidence. The court criticized the lower courts for not recognizing the compromise and for summoning the applicants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. despite the settlement.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the orders of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar dated 22.11.2022, and the Revisional Court dated 16.12.2022. The court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the compromise between the parties should have been given due consideration, and the summoning of the applicants was unjustified.