IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 50376-M of 2008
Date of Decision: 12.12.2008
***
Gopinder Singh and others ..Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab & another .. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
Present:- Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. B.S.Sra, DAG Punjab
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.2-complainant.
...
ARVIND KUMAR, J:
Affidavit of Manjeet Kaur, daughter of respondent No.2-
complainant and wife of petitioner No.1-Gopinder Singh, is taken on
record.
Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
the petitioner have sought for quashing of FIR No. 76 dated 14.5.2007
registered against him under Sections 420, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station
B-Division, Amritsar, and all other consequent proceedings.
The impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of
statement made by respondent No.2-complainant, namely, Suba Singh, to
the effect that the petitioner No.1, Gopinder Singh, i.e. his son-in-law, in
connivance with his parents, acquired a new passport showing him as
unmarried in order to go abroad so as to spoil the life of his daughter and
her minor son and thereafter, on his objection, the petitioners started
threatening him.
During the pendency of the proceedings, compromise has been
entered into between the parties.
Complainant-respondent No.2, vide his short affidavit, has
stated that the matter has been compromised by her with the petitioners.
The daughter of respondent-complainant No.2, i.e. wife of petitioner No.1,
has also filed an affidavit, as stated above, in Court today and has stated that
Crl. Misc. No. 50376-M of 2008 -2-
she has sorted out the differences with her husband-petitioner No.1 and is
presently residing happily with her husband. Counsel appearing on behalf
of complainant-respondent No.2 upon instructions from his client, has
authenticated the compromise and has stated that the FIR and the
proceedings may be quashed.
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
Crl. Misc. No. 50376-M of 2008 -3-
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.”
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, impugned FIR
No. 76 dated 14.5.2007 registered against the petitioners under Sections
420, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station B-Division, Amritsar, and all other
consequent proceedings therein are quashed.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
December 12, 2008
JS