High Court's Powers U/S 482 CrPC Wide Enough To Quash FIR & Subsequent Proceedings Even For Non-Compoundable Offences: Punjab & Haryana High Court
High Courts can exercise powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.Although compounding of offences is governed under Section 320 of CrPC and non-compoundable offences are not covered in that Section, this limited jurisdiction of compounding an offence within is not an embargo against invoking inherent...
High Courts can exercise powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.
Although compounding of offences is governed under Section 320 of CrPC and non-compoundable offences are not covered in that Section, this limited jurisdiction of compounding an offence within is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers of High Court vested in it by Section 482 of CrPC to prevent abuse of law and to secure ends of justice, it is held.
In a case pertaining to an offence under S.420 of IPC and S.13 of Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2013, where the former part of the offence was compoundable under S.320 of CrPC but the latter half was not compoundable, the petitioner's appeal was that since the parties involved had already reached a compromise voluntarily, the FIR against the petitioner may be quashed.
Justice Anoop Chitkara has observed that the inherent power of High Court encompasses the power to quash the FIR and proceedings even if the offence is non-compoundable.
The facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner, in this case, is a travel agent and had claimed to send many persons to Canada so the respondent approached him and paid him 3.5 Lakhs for the same. However, the petitioner turned out to be a conman and the respondent thus gave a written complaint against the petitioner to SSP Jalandhar and an FIR was thenceforth registered.
The case reached the Sub-divisional judicial magistrate, however, as per his report, the petitioner and respondent then arrived at a compromise with due regard and willingness and the victim-respondent willingly consented to nullify the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the petitioners filed the present petition in this Court praying for High Court to exercise its powers under S.482 to quash the FIR and proceedings against the petitioner.
The High Court primarily took note of certain facts like victim's willful consent to the nullification of proceedings, the offence committed had not affected the moral turpitude of society or public peace and tranquility, that rejecting the compromise may breed ill-will and that the accused is a first-time offender and the purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature.
Further perusing several Supreme Court judgments like Gold Quest International Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, where it was held that if the matter pertains to civil property disputes and there are no chances of conviction and the parties have arrived at a settlement then there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings by exercising powers under S.482 CrPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution.
Reliance was also placed on Parbatbhai Aahir v. state of Gujarat, where the apex court, while reiterating the purpose of inherent powers vested in High Court to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of the law, had observed that the High Court's powers to quash FIR/criminal proceedings if a settlement had been reached was distinctive from the invocation of jurisdiction to compound an offence under S.320, CrPC. The apex court then explicitly laid down that the power to quash FIR/Criminal proceedings under S.482 is attracted even in cases where the offences are non-compoundable.
Further, in Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh the apex court stated that "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."
The High Court averred that it had the inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings in the present case and that the finest hour of justice is when parties bury the hatchet as was also iterated by the apex court in Shakuntala Sawhney v. Kaushalya Sawhney, and thus, the FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner were quashed and any pending applications stood closed as well.
Case Title: Jagir Singh @ Sukha @ Pamma v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 15
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara
Counsels for Appellant: Mr. Vikasdeep Singh
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab and Mr. Vikas Gupta