Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sadhu Ram Gupta vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 14 July, 2008
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Criminal Misc. No.79539-M of 2006 (O&M). (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
Criminal Misc. No.79539-M of 2006 (O&M).
Date of decision : 14.7.2008
Sadhu Ram Gupta ..... Petitioner.
vs.
The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal. Present: Mr.Dharminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent no.1.
None for respondent no.2.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The prayer made in this present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code'), is for quashing of Complaint no. 307/03 titled as Inderjit Oberai vs Sadhu Ram Gupta (Annexure P-1) under Sections 418, 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, pending in the Court of Smt. Rachna Gupta, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon, and the summoning order dated 7.3.2005 (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably. There are three accused in the complaint filed by respondent no.2. Criminal Misc. No.27087-M of 2006 filed by one of the co-accused namely Smt. Usha Rani, wife of the petitioner for quashing of criminal complaint, was allowed by this court wherein statement of the respondent/ complainant was recorded. It was specifically stated therein by the complainant that he has compromised the matter with the petitioner therein and her husband (present petitioner) and has received a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as full and final payment. He undertook to withdraw the complaint filed against the petitioner therein as well as against her husband and also to make a similar statement to that effect in the present case. Though as per the office report in the present case, service of respondent no.2/ complainant is incomplete, however from a perusal of the statement made before this court in Criminal Misc. No.27087-M of 2006 on Criminal Misc. No.79539-M of 2006 (O&M). (2) 2.3.2007, it is clearly established that respondent no.2/ complainant is in knowledge of the present petition as well. Statement made by respondent no.2, as referred to above, is extracted hereunder below:-
"The criminal complaint bearing its No.307/03 titled as Inderjit Oberoi vs. Sadhu Ram Gupta, a copy whereof is annexed with the aforesaid Crl. Misc. No.27087-M of 2006 as Annexure P-1, was filed by me against petitioner- Smt. Usha Rani and two others. During the pendency of Crl. Misc. No.27087-M of 2006, I have compromised the dispute with the petitioner and her husband Shri Sadhu Ram Gupta for a total amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. Out of the said agreed amount, the sum of Rs.40,00,000/- was already received by me and the remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has been received by me in Court today vide Demand Draft No.461647 dated 22.1.2007 issued by Punjab National Bank, Dehradun (Uttranchal). I undertake to withdraw the aforesaid criminal complaint filed by me qua the petitioner- Smt. Usha Rani and her husband Shri Sadhu Ram Gupta. I further undertake to make similar statement in Crl. Misc. No.79539-M of 2006 filed by Shri Sadhu Ram Gupta, as and when it comes up for hearing."
The submission is that once respondent no.2/ complainant has compromised the dispute with the petitioner and a statement to that effect has already been made by him in the court, as referred to above, the complaint in question filed against the petitioner be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225.
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(2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723, opined as under:-
"27. 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, Criminal Misc. No.79539-M of 2006 (O&M). (3) 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".
28. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the 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 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.
29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
30. 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 Criminal Misc. No.79539-M of 2006 (O&M). (4) the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.
31. 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.
32. The power under Section 482 of the 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 para-meters 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 of the 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 Criminal Misc. No.79539-M of 2006 (O&M). (5) 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 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).
Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, Complaint no. 307/03 titled as Inderjit Oberai vs Sadhu Ram Gupta (Annexure P-1) under Sections 418, 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, pending in the court of Smt. Rachna Gupta, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon, and the summoning order dated 7.3.2005 (Annexure P-2), are hereby quashed qua the petitioner Sadhu Ram Gupta.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
14.7.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge