Crl. Misc. No.M-3485 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-3485 of 2011 Date of Decision: 03.02.2011 Roopan and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking permission of this Court for compounding the offences in Criminal Complaint No.RBT/286-E Dated 15.05.2000/01.02.2008 titled as State vs. Roopan and others under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452 and 506 IPC at the stage of appeal before the Sessions Court at Faridabad i.e. Criminal Appeal No.44 dated 12.11.2009 arising out of judgment of conviction dated 23.10.2009 and order of sentence dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad. It is submitted that the FIR No.64/2000 was registered against the husband of respondent No.2 and others for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 506 IPC in Police Station Chhainsa, District Faridabad. In the aforesaid case, the accused were ordered to be acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad vide judgment dated 23.10.2009. However, against the said order of acquittal, the State of Haryana has filed an appeal, which is pending before the Sessions Court, Crl. Misc. No.M-3485 of 2011 2 Faridabad. The said appeal stands admitted. At the same time, a Criminal Complaint No.RBT/286-E dated 15.05.2000 against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences is pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Special Environment Court at Faridabad. In the said complaint, the accused petitioners were convicted for the said offences. However, the appeal has been filed against the said order of conviction and the said appeal, too, is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. However, during the pendency of both the appeals, the parties have amicably resolved their differences. However, in both the appeals, all the offences are compoundable except the offence under Section 452 IPC. As such, the Appellate Court cannot compound the said offence. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, as well as order of conviction. This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 who relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound Crl. Misc. No.M-3485 of 2011 3 the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that the compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under :- “ The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” In view of the above, the present petition is allowed with permission to the parties to compound the said offences in the said appeals, as mentioned above, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad shall record the statement of the parties and in case, he arrives at the conclusion that the parties have entered into compromise and the compromise is genuine, he is at liberty to compound the said offence and pass an appropriate order in view of the same. Allowed as above. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 03.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet