In CRM-M No. 14323 of 2022-PUNJ HC- Prosecution in connection with non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing FIR: P&H HC quashes case registered for offence u/s 420 IPC which is compoundable and section 13 of Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 which is non-compoundable in nature Justice Anoop Chitkara [04-07-2022]

Read Order: Sukhwinder Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Others 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, July 5, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has recently invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed an FIR registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s) on the ground of a compromise entered into between the parties voluntarily. 

The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara held in this respect, “In the present case the offence under section 420 IPC is compoundable; however the offence under section13 of The Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings. ”

The petitioners, arraigned as accused in an FIR registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012, come up before the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person. 

During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person compromised the matter. After having entered such a compromise, the petitioners came up before the High Court to quash the FIR and in the quashing petition, the aggrieved persons were impleaded as respondent(s).  

When the Court directed the magistrate concerned to prepare a report on the merits of the compromise, the aggrieved persons stated before the JMIC Rajpura that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court’s report, the parties consented to the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.  

After considering the report of the magistrate and despite the severe opposition of the State’s counsel to this compromise, the Court observed that the accused and the private respondent amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and without any coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means. Further, the Court also noted that the aggrieved person willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings and there was no objection from the private respondent in case the present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed. 

Also, considering the fact that in the present case, the occurrence did not affect public peace or tranquillity, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, rather, the rejection of compromise may lead to ill will, the Court opined, 

“The purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work to bring peace to family, community, and society… The exercise of the inherent power for quashing FIR and all consequential proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice.”

Additionally, the Court also observed that in this case, although the offence under section 420 IPC was compoundable, the offence under section13 of the Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 was not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. But, having said so, Justice Chitkara asserted that in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings. 

Thus, considering the entire facts and the compromise, the Court held that continuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever. 

Thus, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invoked the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s). The bail bonds of the petitioner were accordingly discharged.