Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Kumar Son Of Sh. Lachman Dass And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 September, 2009
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
Crl. Misc. No. M-16012 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-16012 of 2009
Date of decision: 07.09.2009
Deepak Kumar son of Sh. Lachman Dass and others
.....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. Ishwar Lal Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab,
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Suresh Pal, Advocate,
for respondents No. 3 and 4.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the FIR No. 39 dated 29.01.2005 under Sections 307, 324, 323, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise dated 18.03.2009 (Annexure P-2), which has been entered into between the parties.
Crl. Misc. No. M-16012 of 2009 2
Counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of the compromise, submits that the matter primarily was spontaneous dispute between the friends, which, with the intervention of the friends, relatives and well wishers, has been amicably sorted out and the dispute having been resolved, the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed. He further contends that the dispute was between the friends and the friends have come together again and because of the proceedings pending in the FIR in question, they are not able to live peacefully and happily as they belong to the same locality and being distantly related to each other.
On notice having been issued, the affidavits of respondents No. 3 and 4, namely, Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Raj Kumar-respondent No. 3 and Jyoti son of Sh. Sushil Kumar-respondent No. 4, have been filed in the Court. Counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 does not dispute the factum of compromise, which has been entered into between the parties and further states on the basis of the affidavits that the complainant, namely, Rajesh Kumar-respondent No. 3 and the injured, namely, Jyoti- respondent No. 4 have no objection if the FIR in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
Rajesh Kumar-respondent No. 3 and Jyoti-respondent No. 4 are present in the Court, as have been identified by their counsel as well as by HC Sarabjit Singh, Police Station Triputi Town, Patiala. Rajesh Kumar- respondent No. 3 states that the FIR was got recorded by him as certain fight has taken place. Now the matter has been amicably resolved, therefore, he does not want to pursue the matter any further. Jyoti- respondent No. 4 also makes the same statement and asserts that he has no objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed. In Crl. Misc. No. M-16012 of 2009 3 view of the statements made by the complainant and the injured, counsel for the State also states that the FIR in question may be quashed along with all consequential proceedings.
In view of the amicable settlement which primarily was because of some flaring up of issue between the friends and they having amicably resolved their dispute, it would be in the interest of justice that the FIR in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed so that the friends can come together again and live their happy life. They are all young and they should be given a better chance to proceed in their lives. The endeavour and purpose for having laws is to have peace and harmony in the society and that can be achieved only by resolving the disputes and that too if amicably they are settled, it leads to permanent peace and harmony between the friends.
In view of the amicable resolution of the dispute by way of a compromise, which fact has been acknowledged by respondents No. 3 and 4, who are present in Court, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder 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, 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-16012 of 2009 4 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."
Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings are continued before the trial Court.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 39 dated 29.01.2005 under Sections 307, 324, 323, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE September 07, 2009 pj Crl. Misc. No. M-16012 of 2009 5