The Supreme Courtroom held that proceedings in opposition to an accused could also be quashed on the premise of a post-conviction compromise between the accused and the complainant/sufferer in non-heinous offences.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar declined to intervene with the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom’s determination to quash legal proceedings in opposition to the accused, even after his conviction for offences together with illegal meeting, kidnapping/abduction, and use of harmful weapons.
Earlier than the trial court docket, the complainant / sufferer made the assertion, post-conviction of the Respondent-accused, stating that the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectable and kinfolk and was real with none stress and undue affect and has been arrived at his/her personal free will.
Counting on its 2012 judgment of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, later adopted in 2021 judgment of Ramgopal and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Courtroom noticed that the Excessive Courts are empowered to quash the legal proceedings even in these instances which aren’t compoundable, the place the events have settled the matter between themselves.
The Courtroom in Ramgopal, nevertheless, drawn a notice of warning that such inherent powers shouldn’t be exercised routinely, however with circumspection protecting in thoughts the next elements:
1. Nature and impact of the offence on the conscience of the society;
2. Seriousness of the damage, if any;
3. Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the sufferer; and
4. Conduct of the accused individuals, previous to and after the incidence of the purported offence and/or different related issues.
Making use of the regulation, the Courtroom noticed that because the offences concerned would not have a bearing to the general public at giant, nor had been heinous offences, due to this fact, upheld the Excessive Courtroom’s determination to quash the legal proceedings in opposition to the respondent-accused.
“…we have now perused the fabric positioned earlier than this Courtroom and have discovered that the topic incident had occurred between people and it’s not a case the place a really heinous offence was dedicated nor it entails fee of any financial offence or coping with contraband beneath NDPS Act or any rip-off price crores of rupees the place the society at giant is concerned.”, the Courtroom noticed.
In consequence, the state’s enchantment was dismissed.
Trigger Title: THE STATE OF PUNJAB VERSUS AVTAR SINGH & ORS.
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 881
Look:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Varun Bedi, Adv. Ms. Swati Ahalawat, Adv. Mr. Akash Luthra, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR Mr. Mohit Girdhar, Adv.
Associated: Informant’s Consent Not Needed To Quash Criminal Case Based On Settlement With Victim : Supreme Court
