Sukha Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 July, 2008

Criminal Misc. No. M-17642 of 2008                                1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                     Criminal Misc. No. M-17642 of 2008
                                     Date of decision:- 30.7.2008


Sukha Singh and others                                     ...Petitioners.

                               Versus

State of Punjab and another                                ...Respondents.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. G.P.Singh, Advocate
for respondent no.2.

RAJESH BINDAL J.

Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 22
dated 20.3.2007 registered under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC at
police station Dera Baba Nanak, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, on the
basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute
between the parties has been compromised with the intervention of the
respectables of the village. A copy of compromise is placed on record as
Annexure P-2. The prayer is that once the dispute between the parties has
been settled amicably, the FIR in question be quashed. Reliance has been
placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder
Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225.

The facts stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners have
not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent no. 2. Original copy of
the compromise deed duly signed by the parties in the presence of witnesses
has been placed on record, wherein the factum of compromise between the
parties is admitted and it is further stated that he does not have any
Criminal Misc. No. M-17642 of 2008 2

objection in case, the FIR in question is quashed.

While dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of
compromise a Bench consisting of five Hon’ble Judges of this Court in
Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra) approving minority view in Dharambir
v. State of Haryana, 2005(2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723, opined as
under:-

“27. To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be
any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to
enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482,
of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is
the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself,
i.e., “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “to
secure the ends of justice”.

28. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya
Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63, Hon’ble
Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of
compromise in the 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 power to do complete justice is the very essence of
every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be
diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to
anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the
standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of
such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it
while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the
ends of justice.

29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the
Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down
the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

30. 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,
Criminal Misc. No. M-17642 of 2008 3

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
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.

31. 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.

32. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is to be
exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of
process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list
nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to
invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has no limits.
However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and
with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has
to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is
vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to
maintain and control social order. The Courts play role
of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony
and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a
Criminal Misc. No. M-17642 of 2008 4

dispute by way of a compromise between two warring
groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and
prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to
give full effect to the same unless such compromise is
abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would
promote savagery.”

Compromise in modern society is the sine qua non of harmony
and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J., the finest hour of
justice arrives propitiously when parties despite falling apart, bury the
hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. Inherent power of the
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not limited to matrimonial cases alone.
The Court has wide powers to quash the proceedings even in non-
compoundable offences in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to
secure ends of justice, notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Exercise of power in a given situation will depend on facts of each case.
The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a
protracted litigation but it is a vital and extra-ordinary instrument to
maintain and control social order. Resolution of dispute by way of
compromise between two warring groups should be encouraged unless such
compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of society or would promote
savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra).

Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above
and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful
purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly,
FIR No. 22 dated 20.3.2007 registered under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148,
149 IPC at police station Dera Baba Nanak, Tehsil Batala, District
Gurdaspur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

July 30, 2008                                        ( RAJESH BINDAL )
ritu-II                                                   JUDGE