Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nachatter Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 3 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133290
CRR 1676-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR 1676-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision:03.10.2024
Nachatter Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
CRM 37260 of 2024
1. Allowed, as prayed for.
2. Main Case is taken up for hearing today itself.
CRR 1676-2024
1. The petitioner had filed the present petition against the
impugned judgment dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby, the petitioner was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years
and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith default stipulation.
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 11:30:09 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133290
CRR 1676-2024 (O&M) -2-
2. During the pendency of the main petition, the petitioner
filed an application under Section 359 of BNSS read with Section 528
of BNSS seeking permission of this Court to compound the offence in
the present case. Consequently, vide order dated 13.09.2024, this
Court had directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/CJM for
recording their statements qua the compromise in the present case and
the trial Court/CJM was also directed to submit a report on or before
next date of hearing.
3 In compliance of the order dated 13.09.2024, the
petitioner as well as the complainant side appeared before the Court
of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala and submitted that the parties
had compromised the matter with each other and the complainant
admitted his signatures on the compromise deed dated 10.09.2024.
After recording the statements of both the parties as well as the
Investigating Officer of the case, the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Barnala, submitted a report that the compromise between the
parties appeared to be genuine, valid, voluntary and not as a result of
fraud. It was also submitted that the victim in the present case had
been made party in the present case.
4. Even during the course of proceedings today, a short
reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 and the same is
taken on record. Even, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No. 2 submits that the matter has been amicably settled
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 11:30:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133290
CRR 1676-2024 (O&M) -3-
between the parties vide compromise deed (Annexure P-2) and the
respondent No. 2 had no objection if the offence is compounded and
the petitioner is acquitted in the present case.
4. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel
for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
5. It has been held by this Court in the matter of Sube
Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2014(2)
Crimes 299 as follows:-
“11. The extent and sweep of inherent power exercisable
by the High Court under Section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code for quashing the criminal proceedings
on the basis of compromise between the offender and the
victim of crime in a case which is not compoundable
under Section 320 Cr.P.C., has since been considered in
extenso and answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012)4 RCR
(Criminal) 543, laying down that the compounding of
offence and quashing of criminal proceedings are two
separate things and not interchangeable and that the two
powers are distinct and different although ultimate
consequence may be the same. It has been
authoritatively ruled that where the offender and victim
have settled their dispute, the High Court in exercise of
its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is
competent to quash criminal proceedings even relating
to the non-compoundable offences though such a power
need to be invoked sparingly and not when the offences3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 11:30:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133290CRR 1676-2024 (O&M) -4-
are heinous, serious, of mental depravity or like murder,
rape, dacoity etc. The pronouncement thus says :-
“52. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power
by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible
nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula
regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section
482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be
provided.
53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the
ground of settlement between an offender and victim is
not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are
different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the
power of compounding of offences given to a court under
Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of
criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power
of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions
contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely
and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the
formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a
criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint is guided by the material on record as to
whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of
power although the ultimate consequence may be
acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
54. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding
having regard to the fact that dispute between the
offender and victim has been settled although offences
are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 11:30:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133290CRR 1676-2024 (O&M) -5-
continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise
in futility and justice in the case demands that the
dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is
restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have
harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing
that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of
society and it is not safe to leave the crimedoer only
because he and the victim have settled the dispute
amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation,
yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law,
with or without permission of the Court. In respect of
serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other
offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or
offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that capacity, the
settlement between offender and victim can have no legal
sanction at all. However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour
having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial,
financial, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating
to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is
basically to victim and the offender and victim have
settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective
of the fact that such offences have not been made
compoundable, the High Court may within the
framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied
that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 11:30:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133290CRR 1676-2024 (O&M) -6-
likelihood of offender being convicted and by not
quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be
casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above
list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will
depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category
can be prescribed.”
12. The decision in Gian Singh’s case (supra) also
approves the view taken by a five-Judge Bench of this
Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab &
Anr., 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.
13. It is indeed now unarguable to say that the power
exercisable by the High Court under Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code for the quashing of criminal
prosecution is limited or affected by the provision of
Section 320 Cr.P.C”.
6. In the present case also, the parties have amicably settled
the matter in terms of the compromise deed (Annexure P-2).
Moreover, the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala, has also
recorded the satisfaction that the compromise between the parties
appears to be genuine, valid, voluntary and not as a result of fraud and
coercion. Thus, this Court finds that it will be in the larger interest of
justice, if the prayer for compounding, is accepted.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the present revision is
allowed and the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2024 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, is set-aside and, as a consequence
thereof, the petitioner stands acquitted of the charge.
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 11:30:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:133290
CRR 1676-2024 (O&M) -7-
8. All pending application, if any, are disposed of,
accordingly.
9. The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per the
rules after expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal.
03.10.2024 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 03-11-2024 11:30:10 :::