Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulbhushan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 January, 2011
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Misc. No. M-21484 of 2010 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-21484 of 2010
DATE OF DECISION: 19.01.2011
Kulbhushan Singh ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents
BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. GPS Bal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. SS Behl, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner- Kulbhushan Singh for quashing of FIR No. 17 dated 25.2.2009 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station Division No.3, Ludhiana City, on the basis of compromise annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition.
Notice of motion was issued on 5.8.2010.
Vide order dated 16.11.2010, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 29.11.2010 for recording their statements with regard to the compromise effected between them. In compliance of order dated 16.11.2010, parties appeared before the trial Court on 29.11.2010 and complainant suffered a statement that no compromise had taken place. Subsequently, the case came up for hearing before this Court on Crl. Misc. No. M-21484 of 2010 (2) 6.1.20110 and on that date, complainant-Gursheen Kaur has stated that on the date fixed before the trial Court, she could not make the statement as she could not understand the question put up by the Court and it was wrongly mentioned that no compromise has taken place. Accordingly, the parties were again directed to be present before the trial Court on 17.1.2011 for recording their statements afresh and the trial Court was directed to send the report with regard to genuineness of the statements made by the parties. A report in this regard has been received, wherein, Judicial Magistrate Ist, Class, Ludhiana has mentioned that the complainant appeared on 17.1.2011 and made her statement that the matter has been compromised between the parties and she has voluntarily and without any fear, coercion or pressure from any side has made that statement.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per terms and conditions of the compromise, out of total settled amount of ` 6,10,000/-, an amount of ` two lacs has already been paid to the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also handed over an amount of ` two lacs and ten thousand by way of demand draft bearing No. 250097 dated 13.11.2010 to the counsel for respondent No.2 in Court today, who has further handed over the same to the complainant, present in Court and the balance amount of ` two lacs will be paid at the time of granting divorce.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also affirmed the factum of compromise between the parties.
After hearing the 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 herslef 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-21484 of 2010 (3) 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, 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, 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:-
Crl. Misc. No. M-21484 of 2010 (4) " 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" 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 ofd 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 of justice.
Crl. Misc. No. M-21484 of 2010 (5) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercise 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 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 list 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-21484 of 2010 (6) savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra).
For the reasons recorded above and having regard to the principles laid sown by the Five -Judges Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 17 dated 25.2.2009 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station Division No.3, Ludhiana City as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
January 19, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE
Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No