Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldip Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 September, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122199
CRM-M-36568-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-36568-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on: 05.09.2024
Pronounced on: 17.09.2024
Kuldip Singh & others
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & others
...Respondent (s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:- Mr. Jagjeet Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate
for respondent nos.2 & 3.
***
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Comp. No. Dated Court Sections Date of decision
33/2012 10.10.2012/ Judicial Magistrate 323/427/452/50 30.03.2019
RBT 21.05.2015 Ist Class, Mukerian 6/148/149 IPC
36/2015
CNR-
PBHOC100
0195-2012
This is second petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the complaint captioned
above and all consequential proceedings including judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 30.3.2019 by the petitioners-convicts in the above captioned complaint
case, the first petition having been dismissed due to non-appearance of respondent
no.3 before the concerned Court to give his no objection to quashing of FIR in question.
2. During the pendency of the appeal against conviction, the accused and the
aggrieved person(s) have compromised the matter.
3. After that, the petitioners came up before this Court to quash the criminal
complaint captioned above and all consequential proceedings, impleading the
aggrieved person as respondent(s) and annexing the copy of compromise with this
petition as Annexure P-8.
1
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 21-09-2024 04:21:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122199
CRM-M-36568-2024
4. Vide order dated 1.8.2024, this Court directed the parties to appear before the
appellate Court/Duty Magistrate and get their statements recorded and the concerned
Court was directed to furnish its report regarding genuineness of the compromise.
5. Pursuant thereto, report dated 22.8.2024 of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Mukerian has been received, as per which, the complainant (respondents no.2 and 3)
appeared before it and stated that they would have no objection if the Court quashes
this criminal complaint and consequent proceedings.
6. The relevant extract of the report so submitted by the concerned Court reads as
follows:
Name of the reporting Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur
CourtComp. No.33 of 2012 Under sections 323/427/452/506/148/149 IPC
1. Names of the complainant/victims(s)/ 1. Sanjeev Kumar
aggrieved persons(s) 2. Jatinder Kumar
2. Dates on which the statement(s) of 14.8.2024
the complainant/ victims(s)/
aggrieved persons(s) were recorded
3. Has the identity of the complainant/ Yes
victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been
verified?
4. Whether all the victims/ all the Yes.
aggrieved persons have compromised
the matter?
5. Is there pressure, threat, or coercion No
upon the victim(s)/aggrieved
person(s)/complainant?
6. Names of the accused person(s) Kuldip Singh, Satish Kumar, Balwinder
Kumar @ Babbal, Balbir Singh,
Paninder Singh, Sukhdev Pal, Keshav
Chander, Kehar Singh, Amrinder Singh
(PO), Santokh Singh and Balwant Singh
7. Dates on which the statement(s) of 14.8.2024
the accused persons(s) recorded
8. Whether all the accused have Yes. Except Amrinder Singh, who has
compromised the matter? If no, then been declared proclaimed offender.
the names of the accused who have
compromised.
9. Whether the court is satisfied with Yes
the genuineness of the compromise?
2
2 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 21-09-2024 04:21:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122199
CRM-M-36568-2024
7. Counsel for the petitioners-convicts as well as complainant-respondent nos.2 and
3 stated, on instructions, submit that they would have no objection if based on
compromise, the present petition is allowed. The fine is stated to have been deposited.
8. In the present case, there are eleven accused who stand convicted and
sentenced. However, petitioners, who are ten in number, have compromised the
matter with complainant/victims and have filed the present petition for quashing of the
FIR. Another accused Amrinder Singh, who has been declared as proclaimed offender,
is not a party to the present petition. Respondents no.2 and 3 are the only two victims
in this case, who have compromised the matter with the petitioner-convicts. If this
Court does not interject and disrupt criminal proceedings qua the petitioner-convicts, 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 452, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (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. 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
3 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 21-09-2024 04:21:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122199
CRM-M-36568-2024
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
4
4 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 21-09-2024 04:21:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122199
CRM-M-36568-2024
did not find any scope for granting special leave by the convict
challenging his conviction 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.
5
5 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 21-09-2024 04:21:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122199
CRM-M-36568-2024
i). In Khursheed and others v. State of U.P, Appeal (crl.) 1302 of
2007, 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
6
6 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 21-09-2024 04:21:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122199
CRM-M-36568-2024
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 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.
7
7 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 21-09-2024 04:21:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122199
CRM-M-36568-2024
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the
conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant
are set aside, in view of the 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,
8
8 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 21-09-2024 04:21:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122199
CRM-M-36568-2024
[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.
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.
9
9 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 21-09-2024 04:21:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122199
CRM-M-36568-2024
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
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.
10
10 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 21-09-2024 04:21:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122199
CRM-M-36568-2024
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 petitioners-convicts will not
serve any fruitful purpose whatsoever. Given the above, 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 appellant-convicts. The judgment of conviction and sentences qua the
convict/petitioners are quashed and set aside, and their bail bonds are discharged.
12. The petition qua petitioners no.1 to 10 is allowed. Petitioners are acquitted of
the charges. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
September 17, 2024
AK
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
11
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 04:21:47 :::