1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 8690-M of 2009
Date of Decision: 8.7.2009
***
Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky & Ors.
.. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.
.. Respondents.
With Crl. Misc. No. 14369-M of 2009
***
Lakhvir Singh @ Lucky
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.
.. Respondents
and Crl. Misc. No. 8689-M of 2009
Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
.. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners in CRM No. 8690-M & 14369-M of 2009
Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate
for petitioners in CRM No. 8689-M of 2009
Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
According to prosecution version on 13.1.2008 a scuffle took
place between petitioners Lakhwinder Singh & Ors. on one side and
Gurpreet Singh & others on the other side. On the basis of statement made
2
by Narain Singh son of Balwant Singh, petitioners of Crl. Misc. No. 8690-
M of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. 14369-M of 2009 namely Lakhwinder Singh,
Avtar Singh, Satnam Singh and Lakhvir Singh were booked under Sections
326, 323, 452, 34 IPC vide FIR No.7 dated 17.1.2008, Police Station Tanda,
District Hoshiarpur. Likewise, pursuant to statement made by Avtar Singh
son of Gurdial Singh, the petitioners of Crl. Misc. No. 8689-M of 2009
namely Gurpreet Singh, Narain Singh, Balwinder Singh and Kuldip Singh
were booked in the cross-case, under Sections 326, 323, 324, 34 IPC, in the
same FIR.
Through the above-referred petitions, which are being disposed
of by this common judgment, both the parties have sought the quashing of
the above-stated FIR as well as cross-version therein, on the basis of
compromise stated to have taken place amongst them. Written compromise
(Annexures P-4 in all the petitions) and joint affidavits of both the parties
(Annexures P-5) have also been annexed with the petitions, authenticating
the said compromise entered between the parties and their no objection with
regard to the withdrawal of the impugned FIR and cross version therein.
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
3
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, the parties, with prevalent of good sense
have decided the dispute amicably and have purchased peace for each other.
The parties are belonging to same village and it would also help them to
maintain and control the social order. The complainants as well as injured
since have decided not to pursue their respective cases, there are very bleak
4
chance of success of prosecution case. Thus, taking into account these facts
coupled with the law, referred to above, this Court is of the considered view
that there is no impediment in exercising the inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C, as continuance of such a prosecution is just an exercise in
futility.
In view of the discussion above, the instant petitions are
allowed. Impugned FIR No. 7 dated 17.1.2008, under Sections 326, 323,
452, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur and the
cross-version therein along-with consequent proceedings thereto are
quashed.
The copy of this order be placed in the connected petitions.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
July 8,2009
Jiten