1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 27970-M of 2008
Date of Decision: 4.12.2008
***
Labh Singh & Ors.
.. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.
.. Respondents.
With Crl. Misc. No. 27964 of 2008
Jang Singh & Ors.
.. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Ms. Poonam Sambhar, Advocate
for petitioners.
(Crl. No.27970-M of 2008 and
respondent Labh Singh
in Crl. Misc. No. 27964-M of 2008
Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab.
Mr. G.s. Sandhu, Advocate
for petitioners in Crl. Misc. 27964-M of 2008 and
respondent Jang Singh (In Crl. Misc. No. 27970-M
of 2008).
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The above-referred petitions are being disposed of by this
common order.
Affidavits of complainant-respondent No.2 Jang Singh and
injured Gurdev Kaur (Crl. Misc. No. 27970-M of 2008) and that of
2
complainant Labh Singh and injured Amarjit Singh and Chhinda Singh (Crl.
Misc. No. 27964-M of 2008) are taken on record.
Through the instant petitions quashing of FIR No.581 dated
17.9.2004 registered under Sections 452, 323, 341, 294, 506, 148, 149 IPC
at Police Station Sadar Patiala and cross-version recorded therein under
Sections 323, 324, 34, 294, 506 IPC and also the consequent proceedings
thereto has been sought.
It has been contended that on 17.9.2004 a scuffle had taken
place between the parties, for which the impugned FIR was registered on
the basis of statement made by Jang Singh while a cross-version was
recorded therein pursuant to a statement made by Labh Singh and the parties
are facing trial in the aforesaid FIR as well as cross-version and now with
the intervention of respectables, the parties have decided not to pursue their
respective cases pending against each other. Both the parties have also
placed on record compromise dated 20.3.2008 stated to have entered
between them, showing that the parties have decided not to pursue their
respective cases. In the affidavits filed today by the author of FIR and cross-
version namely Jang Singh and Labh Singh and injured Gurdev Kaur and
Amarjit Singh and Chhinda Singh, there are recitals of the parties having
compromised the matter and their no objection as to the quashing of the
impugned FIR and cross version recorded therein pending against each
other.
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
3parties, 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.”
4
In the instant cases, as emerges from record, the parties who
hail from one and the same village have mutually settled their dispute and
have put to rest the litigation. Since the complainants and injured have
decided to withdraw from their respective cases, 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,
these are the fit cases 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 petitions
are allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and cross-version recorded
therein as well as all other consequent proceedings thereto, qua the
respective petitioners, are quashed.
A copy of this order be placed in the connected petition,
referred to above.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
December 4, 2008
Jiten