Can quash conviction if compromise ensures justice: High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that it possesses the inherent power to quash a conviction if the parties involved have reached an amicable settlement, provided, such compromise does not undermine public interest or substantial justice.

“A High Court, in the exercise of its inherent power, has the discretion to quash a conviction where the parties have reached an amicable settlement, provided such compromise does not impinge upon the public interest or undermine justice, as well as the substantial justice,” Justice Sumeet Goel asserted.

The court was hearing a petition filed against the State of Punjab and other respondents for quashing a cheating and forgery case registered at Moga Sadar police station on June 14, 2016, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC.

Directions were also sought for quashing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated January 2, 2024, passed by Moga Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The directions were sought on the basis of a compromise.

Referring to the essential role of high court’s inherent powers in ensuring justice, Justice Goel asserted: “A high court, which exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner should have 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.”

A high court's inherent powers are not explicitly stated in the Constitution or statutes, but are necessary to ensure justice is served. These powers are considered supplementary to the ones that are explicitly granted.

Delving into the juridical foundation of these powers, Justice Goel observed: “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 fulfill the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly, and effective manner.”

Justice Goel added the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS was primarily aimed to prevent the abuse of the judicial process and secure the ends of justice. “When the dispute is essentially personal in nature and a genuine compromise has been reached, the high court may intervene to quash the conviction recognizing the continued proceedings would be non-productive and unjust in the given circumstances.”

Pointing at the critical nature of these powers, Justice Goel added: “The inherent powers of a high court are powers which are incidental replete powers, which if did not so exist, the court would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see the process of law and courts being abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words, such power is intrinsic to a high court. It is its very life-blood, its very essence and its immanent attribute. Without such powers, a high court would have form but lack the substance.”

Allowing the plea, the court added that these powers deserved to be construed with the widest possible scope to maintain the authority of the judiciary.

“These powers of a high court, hence, deserve to be construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent powers are in consonance with the nature of a high court which ought to be, and has in fact been, invested with powers to maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused.”