Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 175 (PNJ)

Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana

2013-02-12

L.N.Mittal

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - Accused Rajinder Singh and four others, who stand convicted and sentenced under Sections 420/167/419/468/471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) by learned Judicial Magistrate and whose appeals against conviction and sentence are pending before Sessions Court, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.), for quashing of private criminal complaint (Annexure P- 1), instituted by respondent no.2-complainant against the petitioners for offences under Sections 120-B, 107, 108, 109, 420, 423, 466, 468 and 471 IPC and for quashing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21/22.12.2011, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, in view of compromise (Annexure P-3) effected with respondent no.2-complainant, who has also furnished affidavit (Annexure P-4) regarding the compromise. 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and others vs. Radhika and another reported as, [2012(1) Law Herald (SC) 874] : (2012-3) The Punjab Law Reporter 108 and an unreported judgment dated 19.10.2012 of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-24994 of 2012 (O&M) titled Manjit Singh Sehgal vs. State of Punjab and another, contended that even after conviction, criminal proceedings can be quashed by this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am afraid the contention cannot be accepted. No such proposition of law has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu (supra). On the contrary, observation in paragraph 13 of the said judgment, heavily relied on by counsel for the petitioners, rather goes against the aforesaid contention. It has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that High Court can exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in cases, where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. In the instant case, however, the petitioners already stand convicted, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused or the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. 4. In the instant case, however, the petitioners already stand convicted, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused or the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. 4. Counsel for the petitioners emphasized on observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding powers of trial and appellate court regarding compounding of offences, when the offences are noncompoundable. It has been held that trial court or appellate court cannot grant compounding of offences, which are not compoundable. However, it has nowhere been laid down in the said judgment that even after conviction, High Court, in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash the conviction along with all criminal proceedings. In the judgment of this Court in the case of Manjit Singh Sehgal (supra), the aforesaid issue was not debated or adjudicated upon. On the other hand, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported as, [2008(6) Law Herald (SC) 4360] : (2008) 5 SCC 667 has laid down that after conviction, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise, if the offences are not compoundable. 5. Counsel for the petitioners also contended that it is primarily a personal dispute between the parties belonging to the same family. However, even on the basis of this contention, authoritative law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Singh (supra) cannot be violated by this Court. After conviction, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if the offences are not compoundable. Consequently, on the basis of aforesaid contention also, in the instant case, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed since the petitioners already stand convicted and offences are not compoundable. 6. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------