IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 17622-M of 2008
Date of Decision: 18.12.2008
***
Manohar Singh & others .. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
Present:- Mr. K.S.Kahlon, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab
Mr. Dheerajpreet Singh, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 to 5-complainants
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Affidavits of Sukhbir Singh, Tejinder Pal Singh, Surjit Singh
and Sukhwinder Singh, filed in Court, are taken on record.
Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
the petitioners have sought for quashing of FIR No.111 dated 28.11.2003
registered against them under Sections 326/323/324/148/149 IPC, Police
Station Sarai Amant Khan, District Amritsar, and all other consequent
proceedings, on the basis of compromise having been entered between the
parties.
The impugned FIR has been registered on the statement made
by respondent No.2 Sukhbir Singh to the effect that the petitioners had
caused them grievous injuries.
Complainant-respondents No. 2 to 5, namely, Sukhbir Singh,
Tejinderpal Singh @ Kala, Sukhwinder Singh and Surjit Singh, have filed
their respective affidavits stating that the matter has been compromised by
them with the petitioners vide Annexure P-3 and have thus, stated that they
have no objection to the quashing of the cross-version recorded vide the
afore-stated FIR and subsequent proceedings. Their counsel has
authenticated the compromise,Annexure P-3.
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
Crl. Misc. No. 17622-M of 2008 -2-
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
Crl. Misc. No. 17622-M of 2008 -3-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.”
Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties
have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice
and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst
the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.111 dated
28.11.2003 registered against the petitioners under Sections
326/323/324/148/149 IPC, Police Station Sarai Amant Khan, District
Amritsar, and all other consequent proceedings therein are quashed.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
December 18, 2008
JS