Criminal Misc. No. M-15551 of 2009 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. M-15551 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 6.8.2009
Amritsher Singh and others ...Petitioners
vs
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent no. 1.
Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent no. 2.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 80 dated
30.5.2008, registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC at Police Station Jhaball,
District Tarn Taran, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
The aforesaid FIR has been got registered on the statement of
respondent no. 2- Amandeep Kaur against the petitioners for causing harassment
and demand of dowry. Now the parties have compromised the matter and sought
quashing of the FIR on that basis.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between
the parties has been compromised with the intervention of the well-wishers.
Compromise-deed with regard to the compromise has been placed on record as
Annexure P3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that marriage between
petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved and a decree of divorce
with mutual consent has been granted by Additional District Judge, Fast Track
(Adhoc), Tarn Taran on 4.5.2009. He further submitted that once all the disputes
between the parties have been settled as per compromise, the FIR deserves to be
quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this
Court in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H)
2225.
Today respondent no. 2-complainant, had appeared in Court in
person and stated that the dispute between the parties has been compromised and
she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. She has made a
statement and also filed reply to this effect in the court.
Criminal Misc. No. M-15551 of 2009 (2)
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) while 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, 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
Criminal Misc. No. M-15551 of 2009 (3)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 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
Criminal Misc. No. M-15551 of 2009 (4)
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. 80 dated
30.5.2008, registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC at Police Station Jhaball,
District Tarn Taran, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed
qua the petitioners.
The petitions are disposed of accordingly.
6.8.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge