Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Murti And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 May, 2012
CRM No. M 1550 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
--
CRM No. M 1550 of 2012
Date of decision: 18.05.2012
Ram Murti and others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. J S Rattu, DAG, Haryana
for the respondent State
Mr. Sandeep Thakur, Advocate
for respondent No. 2 - complainant
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint No. 31 SC titled as Devi Lal v. Ram Murti and others under Sections 323, 325, 307, 506, 34 IPC pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar and summoning order dated 12.09.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar instituted by respondent No. 2 on the basis of the compromise dated 02.01.2012 arrived at between the parties.
CRM No. M 1550 of 2012 2
In the present case, some property dispute between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, who are real brothers led to filing of the said complaint. Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are wife and son of petitioner No. 1. In the said incident, respondent No. 2 suffered head injury. Subsequent thereto, the matter has been compromised between the parties. Accordingly, vide orderer dated 24.01.2012, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court. The trial Court was also directed to record the statement of the parties and sent its report with respect to the genuineness of the compromise on or before the date fixed.
In pursuance thereto, now, the additional Sessions Judge, Hissar has submitted its report stating therein that compromise EX C1 coupled with the statement of both the parties shows that both the parties have compromised genuinely and complainant party does not want to proceed further with this case.
Normally, this Court would not have entertained the quashing for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is moved to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the said complaint on the basis of compromise.
In the present case, dispute is between the real brothers. Petitioner No. 1 is the real brother of respondent/complainant. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are wife and son of petitioner No. 1. It is immediate family.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Sharma v. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1, duly held that there was no doubt that a case under Section 302 IPC or other serious offences like those under Section 395, 307 or 304 B IPC cannot be compounded and hence CRM No. M 1550 of 2012 3 proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But in the same judgment, went on to hold that "a judicial discretion has to be exercised on some objective guiding principles and criteria, and not on the whims and fancies of individual Judges. Discretion, after all, cannot be the Chancellor's foot."
At the same time, it is also well settled proposition of law as held in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SCC 1386 that in rare and exceptional cases, a departure can be made from the the principle laid down and this fact is further elaborated in para 25 of the judgment rendered in the case of Manoj Sharma (Supra) and the same reads thus:
"However, in my opinion these judgments cannot be read as Euclid's formula since it is well settled that judgments of a court cannot be read mechanically and like a Euclid's theorem vide Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani. In rare and exceptional cases a departure can be made from the principle laid down in the decisions referred to in para 27, as observed in B.S. Joshi case, which has also been followed in other decisions e.g. Nikhil Merchant case. Even in the judgment of this Court in Aravali Golf Club where emphasis has been laid on judicial restraint, it has been mentioned that sometimes judicial activism can be resorted to by the Court where the situation forcefully requires it in the interest of the country or society (vie para 39 of the said judgment). Judicial activism was rightly resorted to by the US Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v.CRM No. M 1550 of 2012 4
Arizona Roe v. Wade, etc. and by Lord Denning in England in several of his decisions."
In order to get over the difficulties and hardship faced by the public, a way was found out by the Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi (Supra), Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582. Thus, taking a clue from the same, no doubt this Court has been quashing the FIRs under Section 307 IPC on the basis of the compromise but only on basis of the facts of those particular cases where either the quarrel is between the siblings of the same family or is arising out of the matrimonial dispute or on merits wherein no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out.
In the present case, it is admitted that the parties are closely related with each other. Petitioner No. 1 is real brother of respondent No. 2, whereas, petitioners No.1 and 2 are the wife and son of petitioner No. 1. Thus, here the fight was between siblings of same family. The compromise having arrived at between them would help in permanently resolving the dispute between two families and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the said complaint in the facts of the case.
The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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 CRM No. M 1550 of 2012 5 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 vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-
" We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a 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 utilized 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."
Thus, there is no inhibition to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the facts of the present case for quashing of the complaint. It will bring two families together and would also help them to sink their differences. Moreover, it will rather result in the advancement of the social justice and promote peace and harmony.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and criminal CRM No. M 1550 of 2012 6 complaint No. 31 SC titled as Devi Lal v. Ram Murti and others under Sections 323, 325, 307, 506, 34 IPC pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar and summoning order dated 12.09.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
Allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 18.05.2012 mohan