Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nand Kishore ....Petitioner(S) vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 August, 2009
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
Crl.Misc.No.39735 of 2009 in
Crl.Misc.No.M-29543 of 2006
***
Present:- Mr.Arvind Mittal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.
Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
***
Compromise deed (Annexure P-5) and affidavit of the
complainant (Annexure P-6) are taken on record.
Crl.Misc.Application stands disposed of.
August 12, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
poonam JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-29543 of 2006
Date of Decision:- 12.08.2009
Nand Kishore ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Punjab and another ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Arvind Mittal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.
Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the complaint dated 21.8.2004 (Annexure P-10) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise which has been entered into between the parties, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-5.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter having been amicably settled between the parties and they having resolved the misunderstanding between them, no useful purpose would be served by further proceeding with the complaint pending before the trial Court. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the complaint in question along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Crl.Misc.No.M-29543 of 2006 -2-
Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, on the basis of the affidavit dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure P-6) filed by the complainant Jagtar Ram son of Amarjit Singh, states that the respondent-complainant would have no objection if the complaint preferred by him is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Jagtar Ram son of Amarjit Singh, resident of Village Attalan, Tehsil Samana District Patiala is present in Court and has been identified by his counsel and states that a compromise (Annexure P-5) has been entered into between them on 10.8.2009. He further admits that affidavit dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure P-6) has been sworn by him. He further states that he does not want to press the complaint which he had preferred against the petitioners in the light of the compromise. He submits that the compromise having been entered into, he would have no objection to the quashing of the complaint and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Having heard counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case as well as the statement which has been made by the complainant in the present case that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and the parties having taken the recourse of living amicably in the Society, no useful purpose would be served by further proceeding with the matter which would again be a cause of disturbance for both the parties and would again lead to misunderstanding and misgivings between them. It would, therefore, be in the interest of justice that the proceedings, therefore, arising from the complaint be also quashed.
A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while Crl.Misc.No.M-29543 of 2006 -3- discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), has held as under:-
"28. 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.
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 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."
Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst Crl.Misc.No.M-29543 of 2006 -4- the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned complaint dated 21.8.2004 Annexure P-1 and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
August 12, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE