Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 April, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision : 24.4.2012
Rajesh and others .......Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents
Crl.Misc.No.M-37976 of 2011
Rajesh .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
Crl.Misc.No.M-37525 of 2011
Narender ....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
****
Present : Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana for respondent no.1. Mr.G.C.Shahpuri,Advocate for respondent no.2.
...
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J The petitioners have approached this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C' for short) invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court, to seek quashing of the impugned FIR No.297 dated 14.7.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 2 for short) registered at Police Station City Jagadhri (Annexure P-1) and also the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
This Criminal Misc. bearing No.M-18582 of 2011 has been filed by the husband (Rajesh), mother-in-law (Smt. Krishna Devi), father-in-law (Kanshi Ram) and younger brother-in-law (Deepak) of complainant- respondent no.2, Rekha wife of Rajesh. Similar petition bearing Crl. Misc. No.M-37525 of 2011 filed by elder brother-in-law (Narinder son of Kanshi Ram) of complainant-respondent no.2 (Rekha wife of Rajesh) has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to seek quashing of same FIR No.297 dated 14.7.2010. Both these petitions seek quashing of the same FIR on the basis of same compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. The third petition bearing Crl. Misc. No.M-37976 of 2011 has been filed by Rajesh son of Kanshi Ram again under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to seek quashing of FIR No.159 dated 3.8.2010 under Section 309 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani (Annexure P-1) and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, alleging the genesis of the incident arising out of same very above said FIR No.297 dated 14.7.2010, which is being sought to be quashed, on the basis of compromise. In view of the circumstances noted above, all these three petitions are proposed to be Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 3 decided vide this common judgement.
The only issue that arises for consideration of this court is that, whether the parties have arrived at a genuine compromise by way of an out of court settlement and if that is so, whether the impugned criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. The facts are being culled out from the first petition bearing Crl. Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011.
Parties to the marriage, falling apart, initiated different criminal as well as civil proceedings against each other. It is to be noted here that the hate once started, knows no limits. Rajesh-petitioner filed the divorce petition against the complainant-respondent no.2 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On the other hand, wife-Rekha filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance. She also lodged the impugned FIR No.297 dated 14.7.2010 under Section 498-A, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station City Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, against all the petitioners in both the petitions. However, in the interregnum, it seems that with the grace of God, good sense prevailed upon and with the intervention of respectables and family friends, both the parties were able to bury the hatchet by arriving at a mutual compromise.
Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 4
Notice of motion was issued. The respondents put in appearance and admitted the compromise arrived at between the parties. Vide order dated 4.7.2011, this court directed the parties to appear before the learned trial court for getting their statements recorded in terms of the compromise (Annexure P-2) and the learned trial court was directed to send its report. In compliance of the order dated 4.7.2011 passed by this court, report of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri has been received vide No.1653 dated 19.11.2011 through the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. The learned trial court has also reported that the parties have arrived at a genuine compromise and got recorded their separate statements voluntarily without any fear or pressure. Thus, the compromise has been reported to be a genuine and real one without any pressure.
Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that now the parties have got no grudge against each other in view of their mutual compromise, both the parties have consented for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings. Learned counsel for the parties have also brought to the notice of the court that the compromise has been acted upon. Rajesh has withdrawn his divorce petition. Likewise, complainant-respondent no.2 Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 5 Rekha wife of Rajesh has withdrawn her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the parties are living together happily.
So far as the third petition is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having been arrested in above said impugned FIR No.297 dated 14.7.2010, when the husband Rajesh was taken by the police to his residence, so as to effect the recovery, he consumed some poisonous substance at his own residential house because of frustration and under depression. The learned counsel for the petitioner concluded by submitting that since the dispute in the main FIR bearing No.297 dated 14.7.2010 has been got compromised between the parties because of timely and kind intervention of respectables and common friends, it will be in the interest of justice to quash this impugned FIR No.159 also, particularly when the parties have acted upon the compromise and are living together happily.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the present one is a fit case for exercising the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice.
So far as the scope of the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., read with Section 320 Cr.P.C., for permitting the Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 6 compounding of offence and based thereon quashing the criminal proceedings is concerned, a Larger Bench of this court in Kulvinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, has observed as under :-
"25. 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".
26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney V. Mrs.Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 SCC 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."
27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 7 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. 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.
28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the site 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. n the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 8 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 con-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.
30. 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 9 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 a 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 cogeniality 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."
Considering the peculiar fact situation of the present case, this court has satisfied itself that an out of court settlement arrived at between the parties is a genuine one and without any pressure. Thereafter, the parties are living together peacefully and there is left no chance of conviction. Continuation of the criminal proceedings, in such a situation, Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 10 would be nothing but abuse of process of law and also the wastage of valuable time of the court.
The view taken by this court also finds a support from the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme court, rendered in Shiji @ Pappu and another Vs. Radhika and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Crl.) 9. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex court in para 13 of the judgement, which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under :-
"It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 11 conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 12 is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked."
In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, I unhesitatingly conclude that answer to the question posed at the outset is in the affirmative. Further, since the compromise has been found to be genuine, leaving no chance of conviction, the instant one is a fit case for exercising the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. so as to secure the ends of justice and to avoid the abuse of process of law.
Before parting with this judgement, it may be gainfully noted Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 13 here that in case the marriage, as an institution is to survive, it needs constant oiling in the form of mutual love and affection between the parties. Fortunately, in the present case the marriage has been saved, ofcourse, by the joint and sincere efforts made on behalf of both the parties, for which the parties also deserve all appreciation from this court as well. I say so because a little flame of anger at the spur of movement would be enough to spoil the marriage, if that anger is not contained from spreading its wings by taking wise steps with cool and calm mind. That is what seems to have been done in the present case by both the parties, thereby securing the future not only for themselves but also for their coming generation. Having said that, let this litigation end at a happy note.
Resultantly, the FIR No.297 dated 14.7.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station City Jagadhri (Annexure P-1) and FIR No.159 dated 3.8.2010 under Section 309 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani and also the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. All the three petitions stand allowed.
24.4.2012 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
GS JUDGE
Crl.Misc.No.M-18582 of 2011 14