Criminal Misc. No. M-25921 of 2008 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. M-25921 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.9.2009
Harry @ Harwinder Singh and others ...Petitioners
vs
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present Mr. HS Dhindsa, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, for respondent nos. 4 to 8.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 76 dated
5.6.2008, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Kapurthala, under Sections
307, 326, 324, 323, 427, 148, 149 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 in the village.
The affidavit of the complainant with regard to compromise has been placed on
record as Annexure P-2. It is a case of party faction in the village. He submitted
that two day before the registration of the present FIR, two more FIR bearing Nos.
73 and 74 were registered on 2.6.2008 against the co-villagers of the petitioners.
This Court quashed FIR No. 73 dated 2.6.2008 vide order dated 24.10.2008
(Annexure P-4) passed in CRM No. M-25917 of 2008 titled as Mandeep Singh
and others vs State of Punjab and others and FIR No. 74 dated 2.6.2008 was
quashed vide order dated 17.12.2008 passed in CRM No. M-25914 of 2008 titled
as Gurmail Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others, on the basis of
compromise. He further submitted that since on the basis of compromise, the other
two FIRs have been quashed, the present FIR also 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.
Criminal Misc. No. M-25921 of 2008 (2)
Today, respondent nos.4 to 8, who were injured in the said
occurrence, have appeared in Court in person. They have admitted the factum of
compromise between the parties and stated that they have no objection in case FIR
in question is quashed. Statements to this effect have also been made by them 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, 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
Criminal Misc. No. M-25921 of 2008 (3)
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.
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
Criminal Misc. No. M-25921 of 2008 (4)
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 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. 76 dated
5.6.2008, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Kapurthala, under Sections
307, 326, 324, 323, 427, 148, 149 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
22.9.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge