Criminal Revision No. 1683 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1683 of 2004 Date of Decision: May 09, 2008 Arjan Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sukant Gupta, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for the complainant. *** RAJESH BINDAL J. The petitioners have approached this Court against the judgement dated March 12, 2004 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby that of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh dated January 10, 2002, was upheld. Criminal Revision No. 1683 of 2004 2 The petitioners were found to be guilty of offences committed under Sections 323, 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. However, keeping in view their conduct and other factors, instead of directing them to undergo imprisonment, they were released on probation. The challenge before this Court is to the conviction for the reason that the same is a black spot on the career of the petitioners. Submission is that during the pendency of the present petition, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties which has been placed on record with Criminal Misc. No. 20673 of 2008 as Annexure R-2/1 wherein it is stated that to keep good relations and peaceful atmosphere in the village, to which both the parties belong, it has been amicably settled between the parties that the complainant will not have any objection, in case the conviction of the petitioners is set aside. The FIR got to be registered with the allegation that the petitioners waylaid the complainant and beat him up. It is not disputed that the complainant as well as the petitioners are residents of the same village. The alleged occurrence took place on July 2, 1997 for which FIR was registered on July 21,1997. The injuries on the person of the complainant were found to be simple. Reliance has been placed upon Section 320 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to submit that even after conviction this Court in exercise of powers under Section 401 of the Code, can allow any person to compound any offence as enumerated in the Section. As far as offences under Sections 323, 341 IPC are concerned, the same are compoundable by the person who was hurt or who was restrained or confined. In the present case the petitioners have Criminal Revision No. 1683 of 2004 3 been convicted under Section 506 IPC as well besides Section 323 and 341 IPC. The punishment provided for commission of offence under Section 506 IPC is imprisonment to the extent of two years. Where the parties have settled their dispute, the Courts have even compounded the offences under Section 307 IPC. A reference can be made to Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in Kiran Tulshiram Ingale V. Smt. Anupama P. Gaikwad & Ors., 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 842 (Bombay), wherein the matter was referred to be heard for consideration on the following two issues: (1) “The decision of the Apex Court, in B.S.Joshi's case is not an authority to hold that offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is a compoundable offence,which can be compounded with the permission of the Court. (2) Whether it is open for the High Court to quash the criminal action in exercise of inherent powers even in a case which has ended with an order of conviction after trial?” After referring to the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 888 and G.V.Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 290, the Division Bench opined as under: “The Single Judge felt that the powers of quashing Criminal Revision No. 1683 of 2004 4 cannot be exercised if the criminal proceedings have resulted in conviction, as in the present case. We are not in agreement with these observations. If the prime object of the judgment of Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi's case is to allow the parties to settle their matrimonial disputes either way,then conviction, in our opinion, cannot and should not come in the way. It is a fact on record that the trial Court convicted the accused. The parties thereafter mutually obtained divorce. This fact was taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge. But he expressed his inability to compound the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code because he had no powers to do so. He further granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that firstly in this case the parties have compromised even after conviction and, the object of compromise to live happily, peacefully though separately after divorce. The Sessions Court has taken cognizance of this compromise and has reduced the conviction and altered it to a bond under the Probation of Offenders Act. Secondly, conviction by the first Court is not end of the matter and appeal therefrom is continuation of proceeding and if a revision is filed, in case conviction is maintained, altered, reduced, then the Criminal Revision No. 1683 of 2004 5 High Court in revision does not get power to pass effective orders in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court. Conviction does not attain finality if the appeal is filed and, if the revision is filed against conviction by appellate Court, there also all issues become opened before the High Court. Since the Supreme Court had approached this issue with a broader perspective and the issue was whether it is permissible to quash criminal proceedings (Stress Added) or complaint or FIR and in our opinion, even the criminal proceedings can be quashed irrespective of whether there is conviction or otherwise. We, therefore, answer both the issues as under: “Ans. to Issue No.1:- The decision of the Supreme Court gives powers to the High Court to permit compounding of matrimonial offences and the High Court has powers to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.” “Ans. to Issue No.2:- Even in case of conviction, inherent powers can be exercised and criminal proceedings can be quashed.” Criminal Revision No. 1683 of 2004 6 In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, we hold that the High Court, by exercising inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.” In Santokh Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 600, the conviction of the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside by this Court on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Keeping in view the fact that the disputes between the parties have been settled amicably and the above enunciation of law, while invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court in Section 482 of the Code, I deem it appropriate to set aside the conviction of the petitioners. Ordered accordingly. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE May 09, 2008 sunita