IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 6188-M of 2009
Date of Decision: 4.8.2009
***
Hussan Lal
.. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate
for petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. AG Punjab.
Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate for
Mr. Veneet Chaudhary, Advocate
for the complainant.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Short reply by way of an affidavit of complainant-respondent
No.2 taken on record.
Through the instant petition quashing of FIR No. 289 dated
8.11.2002, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Banga,
Tehsil and District Nawanshahr has been sought by the petitioner on the
basis of compromise entered between the parties.
It has been contended that respondent No.2 got registered the
impugned FIR against the petitioner with the allegations that he promised to
sell his house and received an amount of Rs.4,08,000/- from her, but lateron
failed to execute the sale deed, but also mortgaged the house with some
Cooperative Bank, in order to cheat the complainant. But now the parties
have settled the dispute amicably with the intervention of respectables and
the complainant, who has received back the total amount has decided not to
pursue the case against the petitioner. Compromise(Annexure P-2) has been
placed on record containing the recitals of the parties having compromised
the matter. Reply authenticating the compromise and no objection of the
complainant as to the quashing of the impugned FIR has also been placed
on record.
Although in the reply filed on behalf of the State, the quashing
has been opposed, but 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
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.
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 have put to rest the litigation. The
complainant has been paid back her entire amount. Since the complainant
has 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 consequent
proceedings thereto, qua the petitioner are quashed.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
August 4, 2009
Jiten