Gurpreet Singh Chahal vs State Of Punjab on 28 August, 2008

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                            CHANDIGARH.



                                           Criminal Misc.10747-M of 2008

                               DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 28, 2008



GURPREET SINGH CHAHAL                                ....... PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB                                      .... RESPONDENT(S)



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA



PRESENT: Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
         Mr. KS Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.


AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure,

seeks quashing of FIR No.111 dated 6.8.2003 under Sections 406, 420,

498A, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, City Mansa, on the basis of

compromise (Annexure P-1).

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the petitioner is brother in law (Jeth) of complainant-Amandeep Kaur. The

parties have entered into a compromise, as is indicated from Annexure P-1.

So much so, Amandeep Kaur has, now, remarried. Continuance of further

proceedings, under the circumstances, would not be conducive for the

future of even complainant-Amandeep Kaur.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from

SI Swaran Singh of Police Station, City Mansa, states that the Investigating
Criminal Misc.10747-M of 2008 2

Agency has been given the information in regard to the compromise

having been effected.

From the compromise deed (Annexure P-1), I find that a sum

of Rs.4,15,000/- was to be paid to the complainant in full and final

settlement of her rights arising out of the matrimony.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount has

already been paid to the complainant.

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-
ther, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone
Criminal Misc.10747-M of 2008 3

and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings ev
en 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.”

In view of the above, continuance of proceedings would not

serve any legal purpose. Rather, it would interfere in the life of the

complainant.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.111 dated

6.8.2003 under Sections 406, 420, 498A, Indian Penal Code, Police

Station, City Mansa, and subsequent proceedings are quashed.

August 28, 2008                                          ( AJAI LAMBA )
Kang                                                             JUDGE