Rejection Of Compromise May Lead To Ill-Will, Pendency Of Trial Affects Career & Happiness: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The state counsel opposed this compromise, but the court thought it relevant to consider certain aspects.

a) The accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means;

c) The victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

f) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will. The pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

g) There is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, or professional offender;

h) The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society;

i) The exercise of the inherent power for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.

While dealing with the nature of the offense involved in the present case, the court held that the offense under section 324 IPC is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, without adjudicating this point, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed.

After considering the facts, and circumstances and relying on various judicial precedents, the court finally came to conclude that continuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose.

Reliance was placed on Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Supreme Court held that limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 CrPC is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 CrPC.

Considering the entire facts, compromise, and in the light of the above-mentioned judicial precedents, I believe that continuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s).

Case Title : Jagdev Singh and another v State of Punjab and another 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 57