1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 25349-M of 2008
Date of Decision: 5.11.2008
***
Avtar Singh
.. Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Subhash Thatai, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 34 dated
24.2.2003, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station
Subhanpur, Tehsil and district Kapurthala and consequent proceedings
thereto, on the basis of compromise entered between the parties
It has been contended that the impugned FIR was got lodged by
respondent No.2 against the petitioner and now with the intervention of
respectables, both the parties have settled all their dispute and the
complainant, who has been paid all the dues by the petitioner has decided
not to pursue the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner. The
affidavit (Annexure P-2) of the complainant containing the recitals of the
complainant being paid back the amount and his no objection to the
quashing of the FIR against the petitioner has also been placed on record.
Even, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has stated that, as per his
instructions received from respondent No.2, the complainant has no
objection in quashing of the impugned FIR in the wake of compromise
2
entered between the parties. .
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
3rule 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 have
mutually settled their dispute and the petitioner has cleared all his dues
pending towards the complainant and thus, have put to rest their litigation.
The complainant, the star witness of the prosecution has since 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 FIR and all other subsequent
proceedings therein, to the extent of petitioner, are quashed.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
November 5,2008
Jiten