Post-Conviction Compromise Can Be Used To Quash Proceedings In Non-Heinous Cases : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that proceedings against an accused may be quashed on the basis of a post-conviction compromise between the accused and the complainant/victim in non-heinous offences.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar declined to interfere with the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision to quash criminal proceedings against the accused, even after his conviction for offences including unlawful assembly, kidnapping/abduction, and use of dangerous weapons.
Before the trial court, the complainant / victim made the statement, post-conviction of the Respondent-accused, stating that the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectable and relatives and was genuine without any pressure and undue influence and has been arrived at his/her own free will.
Relying on its 2012 judgment of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, later followed in 2021 judgment of Ramgopal and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court observed that the High Courts are empowered to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves.
The Court in Ramgopal, however, drawn a note of caution that such inherent powers should not be exercised routinely, but with circumspection keeping in mind the following factors:
1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society;
2. Seriousness of the injury, if any;
3. Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; and
4. Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.
Applying the law, the Court observed that since the offences involved do not have a bearing to the public at large, nor were heinous offences, therefore, upheld the High Court's decision to quash the criminal proceedings against the respondent-accused.
“…we have perused the material placed before this Court and have found that the subject incident had occurred between individuals and it is not a case where a very heinous offence was committed nor it involves commission of any economic offence or dealing with contraband under NDPS Act or any scam worth crores of rupees where the society at large is involved.”, the Court observed.
As a result, the state's appeal was dismissed.
Cause Title: THE STATE OF PUNJAB VERSUS AVTAR SINGH & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 881
Appearance:
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.