IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 31163-M of 2008
Date of Decision: 10.12.2008
***
Malkiat Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate
for petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab.
Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Through the instant petition quashing of FIR No. 116 dated
28.5.2003, registered under Sections 336, 447, 448, 341, 506, 323, 148, 149
IPC and 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act at Police Station Jagraon and consequent
proceedings thereto has been sought.
It has been contended that on account of dispute over some
land, the impugned FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 against the
petitioner and others, but now with the intervention of respectables, the
parties have settled the dispute amicably and the complainant has decided
not to pursue the case against the petitioner. Affidavit (Annexure P-2) has
also been filed along with the petition wherein the complainant has stated
his no objection as to the quashing of the FIR against the petitioner.
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. 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 and consequently, impugned FIR and all other consequent
proceedings thereto, qua the petitioner are quashed.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
December 10, 2008
Jiten