Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devinder Pal Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 July, 2011
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Criminal Misc. No. M-3682 of 2011 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. M-3682 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 8.7.2011
Devinder Pal Singh and others ..... Petitioners
vs
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Devinder Kumar Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. J. S. Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent no. 1.
Mr. S. P. S. Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent no. 2.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 146 dated 2.7.2010, registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Ferozepur, and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
The aforesaid FIR has been got registered on the statement of respondent no. 2- Sonia Arora against the petitioners for causing harassment and demand of dowry. Petitioner no. 1 is father-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is mother-in-law and petitioner no. 3 is the husband of the complainant. Now the parties have compromised the matter and sought quashing of the FIR on that basis.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnised as per Hindu rites on 9.11.2008. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not pull on together. The wife lodged the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners. During the pendency of the bail petitions, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, where the same was mutually settled on 30.11.2010. In terms of the compromise, joint petition for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by petitioner no. 3 and respondent no. 2 which is pending.
Criminal Misc. No. M-3682 of 2011 (2) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once all the disputes between the parties have been settled as per compromise, the FIR deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225.
Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent admitted the factum of compromise arrived at between the petitioners and respondent / complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. A compromise would help the parties to live their lives, without illwill or rancour and contribute to harmony and peace in the society. 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, 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-3682 of 2011 (3) 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-3682 of 2011 (4) 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-3682 of 2011 (5) 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, FIR No. 146 dated 2.7.2010, registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Ferozepur, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
8.7.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge