Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhjinder Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 May, 2012
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Misc. No. M-12953 of 2011 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-12953 of 2011
DATE OF DECISION: 01.05.2012
Sukhjinder Kaur and another ..........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents
BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. C.S. Rana, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. G.S. Brar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of petitioners, namely, Sukhjinder Kaur and Sumeet Kaur for quashing of FIR No. 5 dated 1.2.2011 registered under Sections 420/406 IPC at Police Station Phase XI, Mohali, District SAS Nagar, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, which is annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition.
While order dated 14.2.2012, parties were directed to remain present before the Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements with regard to compromise. The Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send a report along with statements of the parties to know whether the compromise between the parties is as per free will and without any Crl. Misc. No. M-12953 of 2011 (2) pressure from either side.
In compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 14.2.2012, a report with regard to compromise along with the statements of the parties has been sent by the Illaqa Magistrate, which is on record. It has been mentioned in the report that the statements of the parties were made voluntarily and without any pressure and because of the compromise the investigating officer did not initiate any proceedings against the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties and statements of all seven complainants, who were aggrieved at the hands of petitioners appeared and their statements were recorded before the Illaqa Magistrate. They have specifically stated in their statements that the amount in dispute accepted by the accused-petitioners has been returned to them and they have no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom qua them.
Learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 submits that all the seven complainants have no objection in quashing of the FIR qua to present petitioners as the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled with the intervention of respectable persons. Learned counsel further submits that the amount in dispute has been returned to all the complainants and they do not want to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State on instructions from ASI Sulekh Chand also submits that no case is pending against either of the parties.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that complainants have no objection in quashing of Crl. Misc. No. M-12953 of 2011 (3) the FIR as money in dispute has been returned to the them and they have no grouse against the petitioners, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. The complainants themselves 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 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 larger interest of the soceital, 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-12953 of 2011 (4) 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:-
" 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 482 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 enimity 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-12953 of 2011 (5) justice may throw up during the course of 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 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 Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The power under Section 482 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 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 make some 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-12953 of 2011 (6) alone. The Court has wide powers to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences in order to prevent the 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 upon the facts and circumstances 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).
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. 5 dated 1.2.2011 registered under Sections 420/406 IPC at Police Station Phase XI, Mohali, District SAS Nagar as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners, namely, Sukhjinder Kaur and Sumeet Kaur are quashed.
May 01, 2012 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE