Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pargat Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000655
1
CRM-M-57804-2024 (O&M)
247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-57804-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 07.01.2025
PARGAT SINGH AND ORS .. Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh Singhvi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Talwinder Singh, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 4.
...
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 for quashing of FIR No.50 dated 14.06.2016 under Sections 420, 465,
467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, registered at P.S. Sadar Moga, District
Moga as well as judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
02.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by ld. Addl. CJM, District Moga and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise
(Annexure P-3).
2. On 22.11.2024, the following order was passed:
“The petitioners arraigned as accused in the FIR captioned below have
come up before this Court under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and all
consequential proceedings based on the compromise amicably arrived at with the
victim(s).
State counsel has opposed the present petition on the ground that one of
the accused namely Jasveer Kaur wife of Pargat Singh has not been made party
and partial compromise cannot take place and other convicts have filed an appeal
which is pending before the Sessions Court.
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:22:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0006552
CRM-M-57804-2024 (O&M)
Counsel for the petitioners has referred to CRM-M No.38140 of 2011
decided on 09.04.2013 in which Division Bench of this Court explicitly stated that
High Court has power to compromise the matter even when the conviction appeal
is pending before the Sessions Court. As concerned for Jasveer Kaur, she has
already been acquitted.
Notices served upon the official respondent through the State’s counsel. In
case the State wants to file its response, they must do so positively before the next
date. The counsel appearing for the private respondent(s) states on instructions
that there is no objection if the FIR and all consequent proceedings mentioned in
this petition are quashed.
Given above, the petitioner(s) and the private respondent(s), and all other
victim(s), if not arraigned as respondents, to appear before the concerned Trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate on 02.12.2024 for getting their
statements recorded about the compromise arrived at between them. Before
recording their statements, the Ld. Judge should ensure the following aspects and
send the copies of the statements and the report in the following format,
preferably before the next date fixed in this court:
Name of the
reporting CourtFIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
50 14.06.2016 Sadar Moga, District 420, 465, 467, 468,
Moga 471, 120-B of IPCCriminal Case No.
before trial Court
1. Names of the complainant/
victims(s)/aggrieved persons(s)
2. Dates on which the statement(s) of the
complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved
persons(s) were recorded
3. Has the identity of the complainant/ Yes/No
victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been
verified?
4. Whether all the victims/ all the Yes/No
aggrieved persons have compromised
the matter?
5. Is there pressure, threat, or coercion Yes/No
upon the victim(s)/aggrieved
person(s)/complainant?
6. Names of the accused person(s)
7. Dates on which the statement(s) of the
accused persons(s) recorded
8. Whether all the accused have Yes/No
compromised the matter? If no, then
the names of the accused who have
compromised.
9. Whether proclamation proceedings Yes/No
are pending against any accused?
10. Sections of statutes invoked in the
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:22:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0006553
CRM-M-57804-2024 (O&M)
matter and convicted from the
offences
11 Whether the court is satisfied with the Yes/No
genuineness of the compromise?
There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner/State can download this order and other
particulars as may be required, from the official web page of this Court,
and attest it to be a true copy. The concerned court can also verify its
authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for
immediate use, if required.
List on 16.12.2024.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 12.12.2024 from
ld. Addl. CJM, Moga has been received, which is taken on record. As per
the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
Name of the Ms. Pushpa Rani, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga.
reporting Court FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 50 14.06.2016 Sadar Moga, District 420, 465, 467, 468, Moga 471, 120-B of IPC Criminal Case No. No case is pending before this court. before trial Court 1. Names of the complainant/ Sarabjeet Kaur, Jaskaran Singh and victims(s)/aggrieved persons(s) Tarsem Kaur
2. Dates on which the statement(s) of the 02.12.2024
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 Above said victims/aggrieved persons
aggrieved persons have compromised have compromised the matter
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) Pargat Singh Jagjit Singh alias Gora,
Surjeet Singh and Jasvir Kaur
7. Dates on which the statement(s) of the 02.12.2024
accused persons(s) recorded3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:22:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0006554
CRM-M-57804-2024 (O&M)
8. Whether all the accused have Above said appearing accused have
compromised the matter? If no, then compromised the matter.
the names of the accused who have
compromised.
9. Whether proclamation proceedings No
are pending against any accused?
10. Sections of statutes invoked in the 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of
matter and convicted from the IPC
offences
11 Whether the court is satisfied with the Yes
genuineness of the compromise?
4. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 admits the fact of
parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the
FIR and the impugned order as well as all proceedings subsequent thereto
against the petitioners are quashed.
5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case
the FIR and the impugned order are quashed based upon the compromise.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
gone through the records of the case.
7. This Court and the Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the
issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash
proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303 and Kulwinder Singh &
others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. The
proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by
Apex Court and this Court is:
(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and
is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code.
(b) However, wider the power greater the caution.
(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it
can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between
the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of
civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family disputes.
(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions
involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:22:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0006555
CRM-M-57804-2024 (O&M)
murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and
have a serious impact on society.
(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance
interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the
High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to
quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof.
High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries
inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.
(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible
only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is
filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out
while the matter is still under investigation.
(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which
are private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of
the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or
whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise.
The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same
as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the
above said principles of law would apply to an exercise of power under
Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well.
8. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Ram Gopal and
another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322
(Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021),
the relevant whereof reads as under:
“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 the body of an individual and
thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if
goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the
administration of criminal justice system.
13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non
heinous
offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can
be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded
or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is
not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws
evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. 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, the fashion in which the5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:22:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0006556
CRM-M-57804-2024 (O&M)
compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and
seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and
after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line
constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A
restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may
lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and
circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other
hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against
perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed
by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.3 and
Laxmi Narayan (Supra).”
8.1. The inherent jurisdiction under section 528 BNSS,
2023/Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is primarily aimed at preventing abuse of
judicial process and securing the ends of justice. Thus, when the dispute is
essentially personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached,
the high court may intervene to quash the conviction recognizing the
continued proceedings would be non-productive and unjust in the given
circumstances. The inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are
incidental replete powers, which if did not so exist, the Court would be
obliged to sit still and helplessly see the process of law and Courts being
abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such power(s) is
intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very life-blood, its very essence, its
immanent attribute. Without such power(s), a High Court would have form
but lack the substance. These powers of a High Court hence deserve to be
construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent powers are in
consonance with the nature of a High Court which ought to be, and has in
fact been, invested with power(s) to maintain its authority to prevent the
process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posit of
jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that may arise,
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:22:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000655
7
CRM-M-57804-2024 (O&M)
the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the
imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions
capable of governing every case, which in fact arises. A High Court which
exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner, should
therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations which, though
not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent
injustice or the abuse of the process of law and Courts. The juridical basis
of these plenary power(s) is the authority; in fact the seminal duty and
responsibility of a High Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfill the
judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, in a
regular, orderly and effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as
necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure
the observance of the due process of law, to prevent vexation or oppression,
to do justice nay substantial justice between the parties and to secure the
ends of justice. Therefore, the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent
power under section 528 BNSS, 2023/Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973 has the
discretion to quash a conviction where the parties have reached an amicable
settlement, provided such compromise does not impinge upon the public
interest or undermine justice, as well as the substantial justice.
9. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise
jurisdiction vested under Section 528 of BNSS to set-aside the orders
passed by both the Courts below as:-
(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility
amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.
(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:22:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000655
8
CRM-M-57804-2024 (O&M)
(iii) The parties have compromised.
(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its
nature.
(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his
own volition.
10. Consequently, the petition is allowed; FIR No.50 dated
14.06.2016 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC,
registered at P.S. Sadar Moga, District Moga as well as judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 02.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed
by ld. Addl. CJM, District Moga and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3), are hereby, quashed
qua the petitioners.
07.01.2025 (SUMEET GOEL)
Jasmine Kaur JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes No
Whether reportable Yes No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 09-01-2025 01:22:26 :::