Bigamy | FIR Along With Conviction Can Be Quashed On Basis Of Compromise At Stage Of Appeal/ Revision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a conviction and sentencing order along with the FIR in a bigamy case, on account of compromise entered between the parties.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "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."

The Court added that 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.

These observations were made while hearing the revision plea against an order wherein the accused was convicted under Section 494 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment of 2 years by the Sessions Court.

During the pendency of the revision, the parties entered into a compromise and prayed for compounding/disposing off the instant revision petition in view of the compromise deed.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted, “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.”

Reliance was placed on Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322] to underscore that, “ 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.”

Justice Goel highlighted that, 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 Court further added that, a High Court has unfettered powers 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.

It noted that the parties have recorded their statements before the CJM in compliance of High Court's order.

In the light of the above, the Court opined that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested under Section 528 of BNSS and quash the FIR, conviction and sentencing order passed by the CJM and Sessions Court.

Mr. Priyavrat Prashar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Ashish Pundir, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Title: XXX v. XXX