1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 32817--M of 2008
Date of Decision: 13.7.2009
***
Rajneesh Kumar
.. Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 142 dated
6.10.2002, registered under Sections 409, 420, 506 IPC, at Police Station
Division No.3, Jalandhar, Punjab on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-
2) entered between the parties
The impugned FIR was got lodged by respondent No.2 against
the petitioner and it has been contended that now with the intervention of
respectables, both the parties have settled their dispute and the complainant
has decided not to pursue the impugned FIR registered against the
petitioner. Compromise (Annexure P-2) has also been placed on record. As
per compromise the dispute pending between the parties have been resolved
amicably by making the due payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
pointed out that against one of the co-accused namely Vinay Jallandhari the
impugned FIR has already been quashed by this Court vide order dated
26.5.2008 (Annexure P-3), on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
The attorney namely Manjeet Singh of the complainant-
respondent No.2 has put in appearance through counsel and placed on
record the attested copy of the power of attorney. He has also filed an
2
affidavit admitting the factum of the compromise having entered between
the parties and no objection for quashing of the impugned FIR.
In the reply filed on behalf of State although 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
3a 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 their litigation and the
complainant, the star witness of the prosecution has since 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 registered against the petitioner
and all other subsequent proceedings therein are quashed.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
July 13,2009
Jiten