Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 July, 2010
Author: Nirmaljit Kaur
Bench: Nirmaljit Kaur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M-24470 of 2009
Date of Decision:1.7.2010
Surjit Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab.
Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of Calendra dated 23.1.2002 (Annexure P-1) under Section 182 IPC pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State at the out set raised the objection that since the said Calendra was registered by the SHO, the matter cannot be compromised by the complainant and the petitioner.
However, on facts, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the complainant-Jarnail Singh alongwith Sukhdev Singh, Parkash Kaur and Gurbachan Singh had filed Criminal Misc. No.39857-M of 2001 before this Court, praying for issuance of direction to the State of Punjab, SSP Ferozepur and SHO P.S. Jaimalwala for initiating proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner as he had given wrong information to the police. The said Criminal Miscellaneous was disposed of with a direction that the concerned Superintendent of Police, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate by him in accordance with the provisions of the code or Criminal Procedure. It was only thereafter the said case under Section 182 IPC was registered against the petitioner.
CRM M-24470 of 2009 -2-It is, therefore, obvious that the case against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC was finally registered only at the behest, persuasion and complaint on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 and not suo- moto by the concerned SHO. Accordingly, there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the same on the basis of compromise entered into between the petitioner and the complainant.
The matter has been compromised. Compromise has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. An affidavit of respondent No.2- complainant authenticating the compromise has also been placed on record as Annexure P-3. A separate statement of respondent No.2 has also been recorded in the Court today stating that he has compromised the matter only qua cancellation of Calandra proceedings under Section 182 IPC and he has no objection, if the said Calandra is quashed.
The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:-
" 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 case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-
" We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a CRM M-24470 of 2009 -3- purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."
Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties, compromise deed (Annexure P-2) and the statement of respondent No.2-complainant with respect to quashing of Calendra under Section 182 IPC, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the same in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Calendra dated 23.1.2002 (Annexure P-1) under Section 182 IPC pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.
1.7.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE