Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdip Singh And Ors vs State Of Pb on 25 October, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140934
CRA-S-893-SB-2007
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-893-SB-2007 (O&M)
Reserved on: 04.10.2024
Pronounced on: 25.10.2024
Gurdip Singh & others ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Ms. Rashika Bansal, Advocate
for the appellant(s).
Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the complainant.
***
ANOOP CHITKARA J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
45 27.3.2004 Sri Hargobindpur 307, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC
Case No. Sessions case No.100 of 2004
Date of Decision: 18.4.2007
Names of accused/ Gurdip Singh, Mohinder Singh, Chint Kaur (Acquitted)
convict and Avtar Singh.
Conviction under sections 307/324/323/326/34 IPC
Sentence imposed RI for maximum period of 3 years and fine
1. This appellant-convicts had come up before this Court by filing the present appeal
seeking setting aside of their conviction and order of sentence.
2. Vide order dated 3.5.2007, the appeal stands admitted and subsequently, vide
order dated 24.5.2007, the substantive sentence of the appellants was suspended during
the pendency of the appeal.
3. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant-convict filed CRM-6237-2024
stating that they have settled the matter with the complainant/victim(s) and on their joint
request, the parties were directed to appear before the Sessions Court for getting their
statements recorded with regard to the compromise so arrived. The appellants were also
ordered to deposit costs of Rs.25,000/- with the Sadhna Society for Mentally
Handicapped, Near Housing Board, Chowk, Raen Basera Building, Manimanja, Sector 13,
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 02:20:25 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140934
CRA-S-893-SB-2007
–2–
Chandigarh.
4. Accordingly, report of the concerned Court has been received, the relevant extract
of which reads as follows:
Name of the reporting Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur
Court
1. Number of persons arrayed accused in 1. Mohinder Singh;
the FIR 2. Gurdip Singh;
3. Avtar Singh;
4. Baljit Singh and
5. Chint Kaur
2. Dates on which the statement(s) of the Baljit Singh was declared as PO but he
complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved had expired on 27.5.2009.
persons(s) were recorded
3. Whether the compromise is genuine, Yes
voluntary and without any coercion or
undue influence
4. Whether the accused persons are No
involved in any other FIR or not
5. Number of victims/complainants in the Nirmal Singh and Balbir Singh.
FIR and whether all the Accused Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh
victim/complainant as well as accused are party to the compromise but the
are party to the compromise in remaining accused namely Mohinder
question Singh, Chint Kaur and Baljit Singh have
already expired.
Costs of Rs.25,000/- is also stated to have been deposited by the appellant-convicts.
5. Counsel for the complainant, who is appearing for the petitioner-accused in the
connected petition i.e. CRM-M-3217-24 has stated, on instructions, that they would have
no objection if based on compromise, the appeal is allowed. The fine is stated to have
been deposited.
6. In the present appeal, there were five accused in total, out of whom, accused Baljit
Singh was declared as proclaimed offender during trial and on 27.5.2009, he expired,
whereas accused Chint Kaur was acquitted of the charges levelled against her. Thus,
accused Gurdip Singh, Mohinder Singh and Avtar Singh stand convicted and sentenced,
who had filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence. However, as per the statements of the parties recorded before the Sessions
Judge, Gurdaspur on 31.7.2024, appellant-convict Mohinder Singh is stated to have
expired on 12.8.2016. Thus, the present appeal stands abated qua Mohinder Singh.
7. During the pendency of this appeal, FIR No.69 dated 12.6.2019 under Section 436,
506, 427 IPC, P.S. Sri Hargobindpur, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur was registered
2 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 02:20:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140934
CRA-S-893-SB-2007
–3–
by the Gurdeep Singh (accused in the present appeal) against the Nirmal Singh
(complainant in the present appeal), Balbir Singh and Kulwant Singh. Aggrieved against
the same, the accused-petitioner Balbir Singh approached this Court by filing a separate
petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR based on
compromise with the complainant/victim(s), which has been dealt with separately.
8. Admittedly, appellant-convicts Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh, the surviving convicts
in CRA-S-893-SB-2007 have compromised the matter with complainant/victim(s) Nirmal
Singh and Balbir Singh, (who is accused in FIR No.69 dated 12.6.2019). In these
circumstances, if this Court does not interject and disrupt criminal proceedings qua the
appellant-convict, it would, on the face of it, be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, which, in addition to life, also guarantees liberty. A pragmatic approach is
whenever a matter is compromised with one of the convicts, this Court should not adjourn
the matter for a final hearing and wait for the compromise to happen at that stage but to
protect the liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court
must close the proceedings qua those convicts with whom the matter has been
compromised and can legally be quashed.
9. In the present case, the offences under sections 307, 326, 324, 148, 149 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 436 IPC are not compoundable under Section
320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, in the facts and circumstances
peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed
by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings, taking into account the fact that both
the parties belong to the same village and they must be living there for generations and
might continue to live, who knows for how long, especially when three out of the five
accused in FIR No.45 have already expired. In the closely-knit village community, when
the parties have buried their hatchets, the continuation of criminal proceedings will not
advance the reformative purposes of jurisprudence just for the sake of deterrence, and
this Court should step forward by closing this continuing cause of bitterness.
10. It would be relevant to refer to the judicial precedents in which the convictions were
set aside based on the compromise.:
a). In Ram Prasad and Another v. State of Uttar Pardesh, Cr.A Nos. 308-
309 of 1980, decided on April 21, 1980, Hon’ble Supreme Court converted
the conviction from 307 IPC to 324 IPC and after that based on
compromise, accepted the compounding of offence under section 324 IPC
and acquitted the appellants.
3 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 02:20:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140934
CRA-S-893-SB-2007
–4–
b). In Ramji Lal v. State of Haryana, (1983) 1 SCC 368, Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in a matter arising against the conviction under section 325 IPC, held,
[5]. All the offences for which the appellants are convicted
are compoundable and the compromise can be entered
into with the permission of the court. Looking to the
chastened attitude of the accused and the commendable
attitude of the injured complainant, in order to restore
harmony in the society, we accept the compromise. We
grant permission to enter into the compromise and accept
the same. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside
the conviction and sentence imposed on both the
appellants. If they are on bail, their bail-bonds will be
cancelled. If they are in jail, they will be released from the
jail forthwith.
c). In Mohd. Rafi v. State of U.P., 1998(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 455, Supreme
Court, the convict had gone to Hon’ble Supreme Court against his
conviction by the trial Court under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC, which was
upheld by Sessions and High Court. After that, the convict and the victim
entered into an out-of-court compromise. Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed
the parties’ affidavits filed in support of the compromise and observed that
parties had willingly and voluntarily settled the matter. To maintain good
relations, Hon’ble Supreme Court granted permission to them to
compound the said offenses and order the acquittal.
d). In Parameswari v. Vennila, (2000) 10 SCC 348, the appellants before
Hon’ble Supreme Court had been convicted under Section 494 read with
Section 109 of IPC. After that, they arrived at a settlement with the
complainant, in the presence of panchayatdars of their village, and placed
on record the duly signed compromise, and parties filed a joint application
for permission to compound the offences. While observing that the offence
involved was compoundable with the wife’s consent and permission of the
Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court granted permission to compound the
offence, and resultantly the appellants stood acquitted of the offence for
which they have been held guilty.
e). In M.D. Balal Mian v. State of Bihar, 2001 AIR (SCW) 5190, out of
three convicts, one was convicted under Section 376 IPC, and the other two
were convicted only under Sections 325 & 323 of IPC. After the High Court
confirmed the conviction and sentence, all three convicts approached
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Although Hon’ble Supreme Court did not find any
scope for granting special leave by the convict challenging his conviction
4 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 02:20:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140934
CRA-S-893-SB-2007
–5–
under section 376 IPC, however, granted the other permission to the other
two convicts to compound the offences under Section 320 (8) of the
Criminal Procedure Code and acquitted both of them.
f). In Vuyyuru Ramachandra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 AIR
(SCW) 2396, the appellant had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court
against upholding the conviction under section 354 IPC. The victim of
molestation came to terms with the convict and applied to compound the
offence. Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed such application for compounding
and resultantly acquitted the appellant under Section 320 (8) of the
Criminal Procedure Code.
g). In Ramachandra Singh v. State of Bihar, 2003(10) SCC 234, Hon’ble
Supreme Court holds,
[5]. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and
the state and taken into, consideration the fact and
circumstances of the case. In view of the compromise it
appears that grievance, if any, of the complainant
KamleshKumari Devi is over. Indeed in view of the
compromise the accused appellants stand acquitted of the
offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. In such
circumstances the sentence passed by the trial Court and
maintained by the High Court deserves to be modified so
far as offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code is
concerned.
[6]. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of
appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 498A Indian Penal
Code is maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment
passed on them for offence under Section 498-A is
reduced to the period already undergone. In so far as
appellant No. 3 is concerned, in our opinion, it will meet
the ends of justice if he is dealt with under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and released on
probation of good conduct. The sentence of imprisonment
passed on appellant No. 3 is set aside and it is directed that
he shall be released on his entering into a bond with one
surety in an amount of Rs. 5000/- to appear before the trial
Court and receive sentence on being called upon during a
period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace
and be of good behaviour.
h). In K. Kandasamy v. K.P.M.V.P. Chandrasekaran, (2005) 4 SCC 349,
based on the compromise, Hon’ble Supreme Court acquitted the
appellants/convicts of the offence under Section 500 Indian Penal Code.
i). In Khursheed and others v. State of U.P, Appeal (crl.) 1302 of 2007,
5 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 02:20:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140934
CRA-S-893-SB-2007
–6–
decided on 28-9-2007, the appellants were convicted by Trial Court under
sections 325, 323 read with 34 IPC. Their appeal against conviction was
dismissed by the Sessions Court and revision petition was also dismissed
by High Court. The convicts approached the Apex Court and Hon’ble
Supreme Court held,
[12]. An offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under
Section 325 IPC is covered by sub- section (2) of Section
320 of the Code. It is thus clear that an offence punishable
under Section 325 IPC is also compounded with the
permission of the Court.
[13]. The parties have compounded the offences. As stated
in the compromise deed, Gurfan Ahmad, complainant and
his mother Kulsoom @ Bhoori (injured) did not want any
action against the appellants (accused). The parties are
neighbours, their houses are situated adjacent to each
other and they have been living peacefully for last many
years and there is no dispute among them. It is further
stated that to continue sweet relationship and harmony,
complainant side does not want to take any action against
the accused. A prayer is, therefore, made to accept the
compromise.
[14]. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and
considering the Deed of Compromise and having heard
learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, ends of
justice would be met if we grant necessary permission for
compounding an offence punishable under Section 325
read with Section 34 IPC as required by sub-section (2) of
Section 320 of the Code. The offence punishable under
Section 323 IPC has already been compounded by the
parties.
[15]. Sub-section (8) of Section 320 states that the
compounding of offence under the section shall have an
effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence
has been compounded. The resultant effect of
compounding of offences would be that the accused
should be acquitted. In other words, once the offences
have been compounded and the requisite permission is
granted by the Court, the accused must be acquitted.
j). In Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC
794, after the conviction under section 498-A IPC, the victim wife and the
convict husband had compromised their disputes and sought setting aside
of conviction based on the compromise. Hon’ble Supreme Court holds as
follows,
[10]. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length. The parties have compromised and the complainant
Smt. Sadhna Madnawat categorically submitted that she
does not want to prosecute the appellants. Even otherwise
also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
in the interest of justice, in our opinion, continuation of
criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of
6 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 02:20:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140934
CRA-S-893-SB-2007
–7–
law. We, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the
Constitution, deem it proper to quash the criminal
proceedings pending against the appellants emanating from
the FIR lodged under section 498A Indian Penal Code. The
appeal is accordingly disposed of.
k). In Manoj & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr. A No. 1530 of 2008,
Hon’ble Supreme Court, based on compromise, accepted the
compounding of the offence under section 324 IPC and acquitted the
appellants.
l). In Md. Abdul Sufan Laskar v. State of Assam, (2008) 9 SCC 333, based
on a compromise, Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the conviction and
sentence under section 324 IPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court took similar views
in Mathura Singh v. State of U.P., 2009(13) SCC 420 and in Gampa Govindu
v. State of Andhra Pradesh thr. Public Prosecutor, 2008(sup) Cri. L.R. 440:
Law Finder Doc Id # 521064.
m). In C.Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2009 13 SCC 790, after the
conviction and sentence under section 302 IPC, the deceased’s family had
compromised the matter with the accused. Rejecting the compromise,
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that once the parties have settled their
disputes, they could live in peace, but that cannot be a ground to pass a
judgment of acquittal.
n). In Gampa Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Law Finder Doc Id #
521064; 2008(1) OriLR839, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[3]. The Trial Court convicted the sole appellant under
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred
to as “I.P.C.”] and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine
of Rupees one thousand; in default, to undergo further
simple imprisonment for a period of one month. On appeal
being preferred, the Sessions Court confirmed the
conviction and sentence. When the matter was taken to
the High Court in revision, the conviction and sentence
under Section 326 I.P.C. have been set aside and the
appellant has been convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of one year. Before this Court, a joint petition of
compromise has been filed wherein it has been stated that
the parties have settled their disputes; as such, they be
permitted to compound the offence. In our view, the
prayer is just and must be granted. Accordingly, the
criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence
awarded against the appellant are set aside, in view of the
7 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 02:20:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140934
CRA-S-893-SB-2007
–8–
compounding.
o). In Hirabhai Jhaverbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 6 SCC 688,
permitting the parties to compromise the conviction under section 324 IPC,
Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, “The injured complainant and two other
injured are permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section
324 Indian Penal Code. In view of sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the composition of offence under section 324 Indian
Penal Code shall have the effect of an acquittal of the appellant with whom
the offence has been compounded.”
p). In Surat Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (Now Uttarakhand), 2012(12)
SCC 772, Hon’ble Supreme Court, based on compromise, permitted the
parties to compound their offences under section 354 and 506 IPC.
q). in Jeetu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2013 11 SCC 489 it is the duty of
the appellate Court to arrive at its own independent conclusion after
examining the material on record. This exercise has however to be
conducted after considering the material on record. There is no power
conferred by the Code either on the appellate Court/revisional Court to
acquit an accused convicted for a commission of a non-compoundable
offence only on the ground that compromise has been entered into
between the convict and the informant/complainant.
r). In Dasan v. State of Kerala, 2014:INSC:54 [Para 10], (2014) 12 SCC
666, the Hon’ble Supreme Court converted the conviction from 326 IPC to
325 IPC and, based on compromise, accepted the compounding of the
offence under section 325 IPC and acquitted the appellant.
s). In Padmalayan v. Sarasan, (2014) 13 SCC 798, Hon’ble Supreme
Court permitted post-conviction compromise for offence under section 324
IPC.
t). In Sathiyamoorthy v. State, 2014(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 867, after
observing that after the compromise they have been staying peacefully in
the village. It is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a
peaceful life, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[6]. Offences under Sections 341 and 325 are
compoundable. In view of the settlement they can be
permitted to be compounded. However, offences under
Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC are not compoundable.
8 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 02:20:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140934
CRA-S-893-SB-2007
–9–
Hence, permission to compound them cannot be granted.
However, since the accused and the victim have entered
into a compromise, we feel that it would be in the interest
of both sides to reduce the sentence awarded to the
accused under Sections 325 and 341 of the IPC to the
sentence already undergone.
[7]. In Ram Lal and anr. v. State of J & K, 2000(1)
R.C.R.(Criminal) 92 : (1999)2 SCC 213 the accused were
convicted for offence under Section 326 of the IPC, which
is non-compoundable. Looking to the fact that the parties
had arrived at a settlement and victim had no grievance,
this Court reduced the sentence for the offence under
Section 326 to sentence already undergone by the
appellants-accused. We are inclined to follow similar
course.
8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The offences
under Sections 341 and 325 of the IPC, for which the
appellants are convicted, are permitted to be
compounded because they are compoundable. The
appellants are acquitted of the said offences. The
appellants are stated to have undergone more than six
months imprisonment. So far as offences under Sections
148 and 149 of the IPC are concerned, the conviction of
the appellants for the said offences is reduced to the
sentence already undergone by them subject to the
appellants paying L 30,000/- as compensation to victim-
Murugesan. Compensation be paid within three months
from the date of this judgment.
u). In Deva Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2014:INSC:505 [Para 5], (2014)
13 SCC 275, the appellant was convicted by Trial Court under section 420
IPC. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Court and
revision petition was also dismissed by High Court. The convict approached
the Apex Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court held,
[5]. We are informed that out of two years imprisonment
the appellant has undergone six months imprisonment.
Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable
with the permission of the court by the person who is
cheated. Since the parties are related to each other and
they have decided to accord a quietus to their disputes and
live peacefully, we permit them to compound the offence.
Hence, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC for which
the appellant was convicted is compounded because it is
compoundable with the permission of the court. The
appellant is acquitted of the said charge.
v). In Ravinder Kaur v. Anil Kumar, 2015:INSC:301, (2015) 8 SCC 286,
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a matter arising out of conviction, permitted the
compounding of offence under section 494 IPC.
w). In Shankar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, Cr.A 982 of 2017 Law
9 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 02:20:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140934
CRA-S-893-SB-2007
–10–
Finder Doc Id # 8378562, Hon’ble Supreme Court while permitting post-
conviction compromise, by holding the offence to fall under section 324
IPC, held,
[8]. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, we see no reasons to refuse permission to the
parties who have compromised the offences which were
compoundable under the Code as it stood in 1998. If it
is so, compounding can be permitted and the
appellants-accused can be acquitted in view of Section
320 (8) of the Cr.P.C., which expressly enacts that where
the composition of an offence under this section is
recorded by the court, it shall have effect of an acquittal
of the accused with whom the offence has been
compounded. We order accordingly.
x). In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013:PHHC:026805-DB [Para 17,
21], 2013 (4) RCR (Cri) 102, a Division Bench of this Court holds,
[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.
[21]. In the light of these peculiar facts and
circumstances where not only the parties but their close
relatives (including daughter and son-in-law of
respondent No. 2) have also supported the amicable
settlement, we are of the considered view that the
negation of the compromise would disharmonize the
relationship and cause a permanent rift amongst the
family members who are living together as a joint family.
Non-acceptance of the compromise would also lead to
denial of complete justice which is the very essence of
our justice delivery system. Since there is no statutory
embargo against invoking of power under Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code after conviction of an accused
by the trial Court and during pendency of appeal against
such conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the
inherent jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings
subject to certain safeguards.
11. This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to interfere in this kind of matter. In the entirety of the case and judicial
precedents, the continuation of these proceedings qua the appellant-convicts Gurdip
Singh and Avtar Singh will not serve any fruitful purpose whatsoever. Given the above,
10 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 02:20:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140934
CRA-S-893-SB-2007
–11–
because of the compromise, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 482 of the CrPC is invoked to disrupt the prosecution and quash the
proceedings mentioned above, qua appellants-convict Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh. The
judgment of conviction and sentences qua the convict/appellants Gurdip Singh and Avtar
Singh is set aside, and their bail bonds are discharged.
12. The appeal qua Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh is allowed, whereas appeal qua
Mohinder Singh is abated. Appellants Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh are acquitted of the
charges. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
October 25, 2024
AK
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 31-10-2024 02:20:26 :::