9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etary dispute, which has been settled and the allegations in the case do not exhibit an element of mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature. The acquittal in the present case would not override public interest. Thirdly, since the allegations in the complaint show that there was only a monetary dispute, which has now been settled, it is immaterial that the petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court. Fourthly, compromise is without any coercion or compulsion and has been entered into willingly and voluntarily. Fifthly, the occurrence in the present case took place in the year 2011 and there is nothing to show that any untoward incident had taken place after the same. Sixthly, the compromise effected between the parties would help in bringing out peace and harmony among the parties. Seventhly, the object of administration of the criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the said amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the petitioners. Hon ble the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu s case [ 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT ] had observed that in case, compromise has been effected at the stage as in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he procuring of the presence of the present petitioner. Notice of motion. On advance notice, Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab, appears on behalf of respondent No.2-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 have stated that the said appeal has not been finally adjudicated and is still pending and during the pendency of the appeal, compromise dated 24.11.2021 (Annexure P-4) has been effected between the parties, as per which, all the disputes between petitioner and respondent No.1 have been resolved. The terms of the said compromise are reproduced hereinbelow:- "PANCHAYATI COMPROMISE First Party: Gurpreet Singh Son of Jagtar Singh Resident of Village Assa Butter, Tehsil Gidarbaha District Shri Muktsar Sahib. Second Party: Sukhwant Singh Son of Gurnam Singh Son of Gurdial Singh Resident of Village Ilmewala Tehsil and District Ferozepur, through his father, Gurnam Singh Son of Gurdial Singh. 1. That both the parties are permanent residents of the above said address. 2. That the first party registered a F.I.R. No.83 dated 12.8.2021 U/s 420/34 IPC against the sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be considered the same as cancelled. 5. That Sukhwant Singh has made this compromise with his own consent through his father, Sh. Gurnam Singh and Sukhwant Singh and his father, Gurnam Singh, will be remained bound to this compromise. The first party will also be remained bound to the conditions of this compromise. According to this compromise, both the above said cases will be considered as cancelled. The first party will not have any objection for the same. This compromise has been written for proof. Dated 24.11.21. First Party: Sd/-Gurpreet Singh Son of Jagtar Singh Resident of Village Assa Butter, Tehsil Gidarbaha District Shri Muktsar Sahib. Second Party: Sd/-Sukhwant Singh Son of Gurnam Singh Son of Gurdial Singh Resident of Village Ilmewala Tehsil and District Ferozepur, through his father, Gurnam Singh Son of Gurdial Singh. Witness: 1. Sd/- Pargat Singh Son of Surjan Singh Resident of Village Asafwala Tehsil Zira District Ferozepur. 2. RTI- Dilbag Singh son of Jarnail Singh Resident of Village Imewala Tehsil and District Ferozepur. 3. Sd/- Jugraj Singh son of Charan Singh Resident of Ilmewala District Ferozepur. 4. Surjit Singh Son of Bachan Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute, the Appellants abused and assaulted Padam Singh (Complainant). Appellant No.1 is alleged to have struck the Complainant with a pharsa , which resultantly cut off the little finger of his left hand. Appellant No.2 also struck lathi blows on the body of the Complainant. Appellants were thereafter committed for trial under Sections 294, 323 and 326 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC') and Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989. Upon analyzing the evidence, the Learned Judicial Magistrate(FC), Ambah, convicted the Appellants under Sections 294, 323 and 326 read with 34 IPC with a maximum sentence of three years under Section 326 read with 34 IPC. xxx xxx xxx 12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njury, if any ; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations." A perusal of the abovesaid judgment would show that it has been held that the extra ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. It has further been observed that criminal proceedings involving non henious offences can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded and appeal stands dismissed against conviction and that handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Thus, it goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post- conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Parkash's case (supra), has allowed a case under similar circumstances. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: "Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riminal proceedings keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice observing that "continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law" and also by invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution. Since the High Court does not possess any power akin to the one under Article 142 of the Constitution, the cited decision cannot be construed to have vested the High Court with such like unparallel power. 17. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice, however, is wide enough to include its power to quash the proceedings in relation to not only the non compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code but such a power, in our considered view, is exercisable at any stage save that there is no express bar and invoking of such power is fully justified on facts and circumstances of the case. 18. xxx xxx 19. xxx xxx 20. xxx xxx 21. In the light of these peculiar facts and circumstances where not only the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C), registered at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahar, District-Nawanshahar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the accused petitioners, are quashed, on the basis of compromise dated 06.02.2015 (Annexure P-4), subject to payment of costs of ₹ 25,000/-, to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 25.09.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, are set aside subject to payment of cost." Another Coordinate of this Court in a judgment dated 09.03.2017 passed in CRR no.390 of 2017 titled as "Kuldeep Singh vs. Vijay Kumar and another" has held as under:- "Reliance can be placed on Kaushalya Devi Massand vs. Roopkishore Khore, 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 298 and Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal, AIR 2010 (SC) 1097. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of Section 401 Cr.P.C. would result in bringing about ends of justice between the parties in the event of finding that the compromise is genuine, bonafide and free from any undue influence. The compromise in question would serve as a ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case took place in the year 2011 and there is nothing to show that any untoward incident had taken place after the same. Sixthly, the compromise effected between the parties would help in bringing out peace and harmony among the parties. Seventhly, the object of administration of the criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the said amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the petitioners. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (Supra) had observed that in case, compromise has been effected at the stage as in the present case, 15% of the cheque amount would have to be deposited by the petitioner. Thus, keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed and Criminal Complaint No.27 dated 19.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 titled as Gurpreet Singh Vs. Sukhwant Singh as well as judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidderbaha, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 for a period of two years rigorous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
