Punjab & Haryana High Court sets rules on amicable settlements and quashing convictions

The Punjab and Haryana High Court made it clear that it possesses inherent power to quash convictions when the parties involved reach an amicable settlement, provided such agreements do not compromise public interest or substantial justice.

Here's a detailed explainer of the court's ruling and its implications.

What happened?

A petition was filed seeking the quashing of a cheating and forgery case registered at Moga Sadar police station in 2016. The case involved offenses under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner also sought to annul the judgment of conviction and sentence passed on January 2, 2024, by Moga's Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, citing a compromise between the parties.

What did the court say?  

Justice Sumeet Goel delineated the significance of the high court's inherent powers by asserting: “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.”

The court asserted that these powers were integral to upholding justice and preventing misuse of the judicial process.

Why are these powers important?  

The inherent powers of the high court are not explicitly mentioned in statutory law but are crucial to ensuring justice. Justice Goel elaborated on the juridical foundation of these powers by asserting: “The juridical basis of these plenary powers is the authority, in fact the seminal duty and responsibility of a High Court, to uphold, protect, and fulfill the judicial function of administering justice in an orderly and effective manner.”

The courts without these powers would be limited in addressing situations where continued proceedings could lead to injustice or abuse of the judicial process.

What is the legal basis?  

The court referred to the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS before explaining that these powers aimed to prevent abuse of the judicial process and secure the ends of justice. The court added continuing proceedings would be non-productive and unjust, when disputes were personal and a genuine compromise was reached.

Key takeaways  

The high court asserted these broad powers were required to be exercised judiciously to maintain judicial authority and prevent misuse of the legal process. Compromises leading to quashing must not undermine public interest or substantial justice.

Referring to the powers as the "lifeblood" of a high court, Justice Goel observed these were essential to its role in administering justice effectively.  These powers were required to be exercised on a case-to-case basis, ensuring fairness and justice while balancing individual and societal interests.

What does this mean for future cases?  

The ruling reaffirms the high court’s discretion in quashing convictions, particularly in personal disputes resolved amicably. The courts would assess each case's broader implications, while ensuring justice was not sacrificed for expediency. The petitioners seeking relief under such grounds would be required to demonstrate the genuineness of the compromise and the lack of adverse impact on public interest or justice.