Can quash convictions in personal disputes resolved through mutual compromise: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that it can quash convictions in personal disputes resolved through mutual compromise. “When the dispute is essentially personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, the high court may intervene to quash the conviction recognising the continued proceedings would be non-productive and unjust in the given circumstances,” Justice Sumeet Goel asserted.

The court asserted that its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the CrPC were primarily aimed at preventing abuse of judicial process and securing the ends of justice. Describing the inherent powers as intrinsic to the high court, Justice Goel asserted these were “the very life-blood, very essence and immanent attribute”.

Justice Goel asserted a high court would have form but lack the substance without the inherent powers. In the absence of the powers, the court would be “obliged to sit still and helplessly see the process of law and courts being abused for the purposes of injustice”.

The powers, as such, deserved to be construed with the “widest possible amplitude” to enable the high court to fulfil its duty of maintaining justice and preventing the process of law from being obstructed or misused.

Addressing the limits of statutory language, the court observed that “the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case”. As such, a high court existing “for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner,” was required to possess “unfettered powers to deal with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with to prevent injustice or the abuse of the process of law and courts”.

Justice Goel added the basis of these broad powers was the high court’s fundamental duty to uphold, protect, and carry out its role of administering justice in a lawful, orderly, and effective manner. “The juridical basis of these plenary powers is the authority; in fact the seminal duty and responsibility of a high court to uphold, to protect and to fulfil the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly and effective manner,” the court added

Justice Goel added Section 528 reflected “peerless powers,” which might be drawn upon whenever “it is just and equitable to do so,” particularly to “ensure the observance of the due process of law, to prevent vexation or oppression, to do justice, nay substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of justice”.

Before parting, Justice Goel asserted the high court, in the exercise of its inherent power, had the discretion to quash a conviction where the parties had reached an amicable settlement, provided it did not “impinge upon the public interest or undermine justice as well as the substantial justice”.