Criminal Misc. No. M-29404 of 2009 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. M-29404 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.11.2009
Harpal Singh ..... Petitioner
vs
State of UT Chandigarh and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. DD Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 1.
Mr. AK Walia and Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocates,
for respondent no. 2 and 3.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 158 dated
25.9.2009, registered under Sections 365, 506, 34 IPC, at Police Station, Sector-3,
Chandigarh, and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 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. The complainant is the
son-in-law of the petitioner with whom the daughter of the petitioner had
solemnised the marriage against his wishes. Now he has accepted the marriage of
respondent no. 2 with respondent no. 3. Respondents no. 2 and 3 have also filed
CRM No. M-27322 of 2009 titled as Simranjit Singh and another vs The State of
Punjab and others which was disposed of by this court today keeping in view the
statement of the petitioner herein that he will not interfere in the married life of his
daughter. Respondents no. 2 and 3 have also got recorded their statements to the
effect that as the parties have settled their disputes, they have no objection in case
the FIR in question is quashed. Learned counsel submitted that since the parties
have compromised the matter, the FIR in question 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.
From the perusal of statements of the parties, it is clear that the
petitioner and respondents no. 2 and 3 have resolved their differences by a
bonafide compromise free from any fraud, coercion or undue influence. A
Criminal Misc. No. M-29404 of 2009 (2)
compromise would help the parties to live their lives, without illwill or rancour and
contribute to harmony and peace in the community. 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
Criminal Misc. No. M-29404 of 2009 (3)
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.
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
Criminal Misc. No. M-29404 of 2009 (4)
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 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. 158 dated
25.9.2009, registered under Sections 365, 506, 34 IPC, at Police Station, Sector-3,
Chandigarh, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
12.11.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge