Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shalini Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Another on 22 May, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Criminal Misc.No.M-37118 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1) Criminal Misc.No.M-37118 of 2010(O&M)
Shalini Sharma ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
(2) Criminal Misc.No.M-37119 of 2010(O&M)
Gopi Ram Sharma ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
Date of Decision:22.05.2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Berjeshwar S.Jaswal, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr.Kartar Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr.Ashok Goel, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) As, identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide both the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same FIR (case), by means of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition.
2. The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of complaint(Annexure P-4) filed by complainant Harpal Singh son of Dalip Singh, respondent No.2(for brevity "the complainant") and in pursuance of the order of the Magistrate under Section Criminal Misc.No.M-37118 of 2010 2 156(3) Cr.P.C., a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by way of FIR No.288 dated 09.11.2010(Annexure P-5) for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420/34 IPC, by the police of Police Station City, Tohana, District Fatehabad.
3. The petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied with the registration of the criminal cases against them and preferred the present petitions, to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-5) and all other consequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court(M.M.S.Bedi, J.) passed the following order on December 17, 2010:-
"The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR, which has been registered under the directions of the court of Mr.Amrit Singh Chalia, SDJM, Tohana u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is alleged that the petitioner had fraudulently obtained money from the complainant by approaching him in Anaj Mandi, Tohana. A perusal of the complaint indicates that there is a dispute regarding money between the parties.
Learned counsel admits that petitioner owes a sum of Rs.2 lacs to the complainant but the modus operandi adopted by the complainant is vitiated and is an abuse of the process of the court. The complainant has not approached any police official for registration of a case before filing of complaint. Prima facie there appears to be an abuse of the process of the court by misuse of the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Notice of motion for 20.1.2011.
Further proceedings of investigation are ordered to be stayed considering this case to be an exceptional case."
5. In pursuance thereof, the complainant appeared and filed the affidavit, which is to the following effect:-
"1. That the deponent had lodged FIR No.288 dated 9.11.2010 under Section 420, 34 IPC at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad against the petitioner.
2. That now, all the differences stand resolved between the parties amicably with the intervention of the respectables from both the sides and Criminal Misc.No.M-37118 of 2010 3 the deponent has got no objection in case the FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the above said FIR are quashed on the basis of compromise.
3. That the deponent has already received Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,20,000/- received by the deponent today.
4. That the compromise has been arrived between the parties without any threat, coercion, undue pressure of any kind.
5. That the deponent is today present in the court and has shown the affidavit in his full senses without any sort of pressure from any side."
6. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.
7. Such, thus, being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petitions is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?
8. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of dispute between the parties, the present petitions deserve to be accepted in this context.
9. It is not a matter of dispute that, the law with regard to quashing the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement between the parties by virtue of compromise, has now been well-settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others Versus Radhika and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 9, Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, wherein it was ruled that the High Court has vast inherent power to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement of Criminal Misc.No.M-37118 of 2010 4 disputes between the parties.
10. The conspectus of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under Section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. 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 everlasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by means of 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 if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is fully applicable in the present cases and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
11. As is evident from the record that, in the instant cases, the parties have amicably settled their disputes without any kind of threat, pressure or coercion. All the differences amicably stand dissolved with the intervention of respectables from both the sides. The complainant has already received an amount of Rs.4,20,000/-(i.e. Rs.2,00,000/-+Rs.2,20,000/-). He(complainant) has no objection, if the criminal prosecution against the petitioners is quashed. Thus, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties, so, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner.
12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions are accepted. Consequently, FIR No.288 dated 09.11.2010(Annexure P-5) and all other Criminal Misc.No.M-37118 of 2010 5 subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. The petitioners- accused are accordingly discharged, from the indicated criminal cases in the obtaining circumstances of the cases.
May 22, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No