DARSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.31 dated 20.04.2016 registered under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), at Police Station Ghoman, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Vide order dated 24.08.2016, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their statements recorded; as to the genuineness of the compromise. In compliance thereof, report of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Batala, dated 13.09.2016, has been received, wherein, it has been noticed that there are total four accused persons, namely, Darshan Kumar-petitioner No.1, Sukhdev Raj-petitioner No.2, Santosh Kumar and Kuldip Singh. It is also submitted that the petitioners Darshan Kumar and Sukhdev Raj have voluntarily entered into a compromise with the complainant, without any pressure, undue influence, coercion, inducement, threat. Neither the accused has been declared as proclaimed offender in this case nor any criminal proceedings are pending against either of the parties.

(2.) The ultimate aim, objective and goal of a legal system is to reconcile the social conflicts. Law is required only to ensure that people do not have to fight with each other just to protect their right to property, right to life and liberty and other rights secured to them by the legal system. The civil disputes are the conflicts between two parties, having lesser overtones for the social order, social harmony or the society as such. Hence absolute freedom is given to the parties to settle their disputes by compromises, of course, coming with certain legal consequences as well. However, the criminal disputes do not necessarily restrict themselves to only two parties to the dispute in terms of their scope, consequences and effect. The criminal acts tend to cast their effect and consequences even upon the society at large. Therefore, the law prescribes punishment, severe punishments and the extreme punishments, including death penalty for criminal acts.

(3.) However more often then not the civil disputes or inter-se conflicts of two parties transforms themselves into criminal aspect. Therefore, the legal system plays empire to resolve the conflict between two parties; with the added task of ensuring that the adverse impact of dispute qua society at large is minimized. But still the core idea is to resolve the conflict between two sides by putting it to rest. Therefore, even the criminal law is required to give due regard to the wishes of the parties to dispute. Recognizing this principle only, the Indian legal System also provides for recognizing the compromise between two sides of a criminal dispute. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is an express provision in this regard. This section not only provides for compounding during the trial, but permits compounding even at appellate or revisional stage. However by its very nature and scope, Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole repository; wherein the recognition to a compromise between the parties have; necessarily; to be confined. This section relates only to the offences prescribed under the Indian Penal Code. There are a lot more offences prescribed outside IPC. Even to the offences existing in the IPC new dimensions are added from time to time, making the existing offences to be lighter or stringent and even new modalities of proof of offences are being recognized in view of technological advancement. This necessitates and requires the need for looking beyond Section 320 Cr.P.C. to recognise the compromise between the parties to dispute. But to maintain the sanctity of the procedure prescribed for criminal trial; the Trial Court cannot be permitted to travel beyond the scope prescribed under that procedure. Hence the need for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court.