IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc.23017-M of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
MEWA RAM ....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. KS Dhanora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Sidarath Sarup, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Harvinder Aneja, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure,
seeks quashing of FIR No.212 dated 23.8.2008 under Sections 420, 406,
467, 468, 471, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Farakpur, District
Yamunanagar (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings, on
the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR came
to be lodged on account of some monetary dispute. A cheque was given to
respondent No.2-complainant which was, however, dishonoured. The
Criminal Misc.23017-M of 2008 2
cheque amount has already been paid to respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant states that,
indeed, the cheque amount has been received and, now, no cause of action
survives in so far as the dispute is concerned. Respondent No.2, now,
prays for quashing of the FIR, in view of the compromise.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State, in view of the
nature of offences, has no objection to the quashing of the proceedings, on
the basis of compromise.
This Court in a full Bench (5 Judges) has considered the
issue of quashing of proceedings in view of compromise in Kulwinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 1052 (Full Bench).
The following has been held in paras 28 to 30:-
“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 so-
cial 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 ab-
sence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventuali-
ties 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 af-
fect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Fur-
Criminal Misc.23017-M of 2008 3
ther, 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.
30. 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 a 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 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.”
I have considered the issue involved. There was monetary
dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Now that the claim
of respondent No.2 has been satisfied, he does not want to prosecute the
petitioner. Continuance of proceedings, in view of these facts and
circumstances, would not serve any legal purpose.
The petition is allowed. FIR No.212 dated 23.8.2008 under
Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, Indian Penal Code, Police Station,
Criminal Misc.23017-M of 2008 4
Farakpur, District Yamunanagar (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent
proceedings, are quashed.
September 18, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE