IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 17542-M of 2008
Date of Decision: 18.12.2008
***
Sukhbir Singh & others .. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
Present:- Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab
Mr. Arunjeet Singh Kakkar, Advocate
for respondent No. 2-complainant
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Affidavits of respondent No.2-complainant, namely, Kashmir
Singh, filed in Court, is taken on record.
Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
the petitioners have sought for quashing of the cross-version case vide DDR
No. 32 dated 1.12.2003 ( in FIR No.111 dated 28.11.2003 ) registered
against them under Sections 326/323/324/148/149 IPC, Police Station Sarai
Amant Khan, District Amritsar, and all other consequent proceedings, on
the basis of compromise having been entered between the parties.
The impugned DDR has been registered on the statement made
by complainant-respondent Nos.2 and 3 namely, Kashmir Singh and
Balwinder Singh to the effect that the petitioners had caused them
grievous injuries.
Complainant-respondent No.2, Kashmir Singh, has filed his
respective affidavit stating that the matter has been compromised by them
with the vide Annexure P-3 and have thus, stated that they have no
objection to the quashing of the cross-version recorded vide the afore-
stated DDR and the subsequent proceedings. Their counsel has
Crl. Misc. No. 17542-M of 2008 -2-
authenticated the compromise,Annexure P-3.
By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of
inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any
such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or
that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of
mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws
made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted
to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.
In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya
and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed
up in following words:-
” The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when
parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave
a sense of fellowship of reunion.”
The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh
& Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while
discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise,
by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-
compoundable offence(s) has held as under:-
“28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine
qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul
of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in
turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then
it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have
their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant
matters, commercial transactions and other such matters
can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of
a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is
limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid
Crl. Misc. No. 17542-M of 2008 -3-rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in
the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict
eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up
during the course of a litigation.
29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above
discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the
Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court
under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to
matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide
power to quash the proceedings even in non-
compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under
Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse
of law and to secure the ends of justice.”
Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties
have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice
and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst
the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, the cross-version
case vide DDR No. 32 dated 1.12.2003 ( in FIR No.111 dated 28.11.2003 )
registered against the petitioners under Sections 326/323/324/148/149 IPC,
Police Station Sarai Amant Khan, District Amritsar, and all other
consequent proceedings therein are quashed.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
December 18, 2008
JS