KULDEEP SINGH 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.20 dated 15.01.2013 registered under Sections 419 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC '), at Police Station Tripri Town, District Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure P-2). Vide order dated 15.02.2019, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their statements recorded; as to the genuineness of the compromise. In compliance thereof, report of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, dated 26.04.2019, has been received, wherein, it has been noticed that there are total five accused persons in this FIR, namely, Kuldeep Singh-petitioner No.1, Harcharan Singh-petitioner No.2, Swaran Singh, Kulwant Singh and Baljinder Singh. It is also submitted that only Kuldeep Singh and Harcharan Singh have voluntarily entered into a compromise with the complainant, without any pressure, undue influence, coercion, inducement, threat. Neither the present petitioners have been declared as proclaimed offender in this case nor any other criminal proceedings are pending against either of the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.199 of 2018 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.978 of 2018; Smt. Anita Maria Dias and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, to contend that even the offence under Sections 406 , 420 , 467 , 471 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise.

(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 recognised 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.