Punjab-Haryana High Court
Iqbal Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 28 February, 2011
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc. No. M- 1189of 2011
Date of decision: 28.2.2011
Iqbal Singh and others
......Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.
PRESENT: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana
for respondent No.1.
Mr.Supreme Bachhal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
ORDER
The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners Iqbal Singh, Bhupinder Singh @ Goldy, Amarjit Kaur and Sukhdev Singh for quashing of FIR No 22 dated 24.1. 2006 under Sections 406/498-A, 323,363 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
Notice of motion was issued on 14th January, 2011 and parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 20.1.2011 for recording their statements. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the parties appeared before the trial Court and their statements were recorded. A report in this regard has been sent by the trial Court along with statement of the complainant. The Crl.Misc. No. M- 1189of 2011 [2] complainant has stated that she has has no objection in quashing of the FIR. It has also been mentioned in the report that the compromise between the parties was voluntary and there was no pressure or coercion on either of the party. The complainant has also filed an affidavit in the Court to the effect that compromise has been effected between the parties and she has no objection in quashing of the FIR.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. The complainant herself does not want to pursue these proceedings and it shall be merely a formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court as complainant would not support the case of prosecution in view of compromise between the parties. It would be in the interest of the parties as well as in the large interest of the society and to maintain peace and harmony and in order to save both the families from avoidable litigation that the compromise arrived at between them is accepted by this Court.
It has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney (1980)1 SCC 63 that "the finest Hour of Justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion." The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, Crl.Misc. No. M- 1189of 2011 [3] except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. Relying on the views adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) R.C.R. (Cri) 1052 that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C., offence non-compoundable but parties entering into compromise, High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
While dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise a Bench consisting of Five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426: 2005(2) Apex Criminal 424: 2005 (2) Law Herald 723 (P&H) (FB), opined as under:-
" To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482, of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e, "to prevent abuse of the process of any Court" Crl.Misc. No. M- 1189of 2011 [4]
or " to secure the ends of justice".
No embargo, be in the shape of section 320 (9) Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
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 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 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.
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 Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends Crl.Misc. No. M- 1189of 2011 [5] of justice.
The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined parameters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.
Compromise in modern society is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J., the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. Inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not limited to matrimonial cases alone. The Court has wide powers to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences in order to prevent Crl.Misc. No. M- 1189of 2011 [6] abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Exercise of power in a given situation will depend on facts of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation but it is a vital and extra-ordinary instrument to maintain and control social order. Resolution of dispute by way of compromise between two warring groups should be encouraged unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra).
For the reasons recorded above and having regard to the principles laid down by the Five -Judges Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed and FIR No 22 dated 24.1. 2006 under Sections 406/498-A, 323,363 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE February 28, 2010.
raghav