Criminal Misc. No.M-26113 of 2008 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc. No.M-26113 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.7.2009.
Harbhajan Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:- Mr. Vinod Arya, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG Punjab.
Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 9.
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
****
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of cross-statement of
respondent No.2 under Sections 452/323/324/148/149 IPC in relation to the
incident with regard to which FIR No. 45 dated 11.4.2002 was got registered by
petitioner-Pakhar Singh at Police Station Garhshankar District Hoshiarpur and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute
between the parties has been compromised with the intervention of the well
wishers and keeping in view that peace and harmony is maintained in the
neighbourhood. 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.
Respondent no.2-complainant, had appeared in Court in person
who admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and stated that he
has no objection in case cross-statement in question is quashed. He has also
made a statement to this effect in the Court.
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,
Criminal Misc. No.M-26113 of 2008 (O&M) 2
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 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.
Criminal Misc. No.M-26113 of 2008 (O&M) 3
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 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
Criminal Misc. No.M-26113 of 2008 (O&M) 4
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, cross-statement of
respondent No.2 under Sections 452/323/324/148/149 IPC in relation to the
incident with regard to which FIR No. 45 dated 11.4.2002 was got registered by
petitioner Pakhar Singh at Police Station Garhshankar District Hoshiarpur and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
13.7.2009 JUDGE
Reema