IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 25600-M of 2008
Date of Decision: 17.11.2008
***
Mann Singh.
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Jai Kaur
.. Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate
for petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
for respondent.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Reply by way of affidavit of complainant-respondent Jal Kaur
is taken on record.
Through the instant petition quashing of Criminal Complaint
bearing No.43 dated 1.10.2004 (Annexure P-1) titled as Jai Kaur Vs. Mann
Singh, under Sections 154, 294, 298, 500, 504, 506 of Indian Penal code
and 3/4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Attrocities) Act pending before Special Judge, Sangrur and subsequent
proceedings taken therein, has been sought on the basis of compromise
(Annexure P-2), stated to have entered between the parties.
The facts as culled out from the petition are that respondent Jal
Kaur filed a complaint before the Court below with the allegations that on
17.3.2004 when she was sitting in the clinic of one Ashwani Kumar, then
the petitioner came there and used filthy language and threatened her to kill
and also threw away her dupatta from head and earlier thereto the petitioner
gave abuses in the caste of respondent, who belongs to Scheduled Caste.
On the basis of preliminary evidence, the petitioner was
summoned and now the case is stated to be fixed for after charge evidence.
Now, it has been contended that the parties have settled the
dispute amicably with the intervention of respectables and the complainant
has decided not to pursue the case against the petitioner. Affidavit of
complainant Jai Kaur as well as compromise (Annexure P-2) have been
placed on record containing the recitals of the parties having compromised
the matter and their agreement to withdraw the cases pending against each
other, as a consequence of the compromise.
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
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.”
In the instant case, as emerges from record, the parties, who are
belonging to same village, have mutually settled their dispute and have put
to rest the litigation. Since the complainant has decided to withdraw from
the prosecution, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of
such a prosecution is nothing but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of
time of Court. Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having
arrived at between the parties, it is a fit case where interference of this
Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made
out.
Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition
is allowed. Consequently, impugned complaint and all other consequent
proceedings thereto, are quashed.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
November 17, 2008
Jiten