Rakesh Kumar vs State of Punjab

Nirmal Singh, J.

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 153 dated 7.12.2000, P.S. Division No. 5, Jalandhar under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC. The said FIR was registered on the statement of Chand Parkash Vij complainantrespondent No. 2.

Sh. Chand Parkash Vij complainant appeared in the Court today and he has been identified by Sh. Ishwar Lal, Advocate. He has made a statement that he has received the material for which cheque was issued by the petitioners and he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

There is no provision of compounding an offence in noncompoundable offences in the Code of Criminal Procedure but in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, AIR 1977 SC 1489, their Lordships have held as under :

"In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court''s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its objects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

In Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(3) RCR 332, the accused were acquitted by the trial Court and were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the Apex Court allowed the parties to compound the offence.

In Saud and another v. State of Haryana, 1988(1) CCC 388, this Court allowed the compounding of the offence through the offence was not compoundable. Reliance can also be placed ugpon Y. Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1987(2) SC 361, Kailash and others v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) RCR 198 , Chiranji Lal v. State of U.P., 1982(3) SCC 371, Bharat Singh v. State of M.P. and others, 1990 Suppl. SCC 62.

For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is accepted and FIR No. 153 dated 7.12.2000 P.S. Division No. 5, Jalandhar under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC is quashed, subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000/ by the petitioners.

Petitioners are directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/ within 15 days from today with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. If the petitioners will not deposit this amount, then this petition shall stand dismissed.