Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 28 July, 2008
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Crl. Misc. No. M-16674 of2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-16674 of 2008
Date of Decision:28.7.2008
Amarjit Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present:- Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. J.S.Sandhu, Advocate for respondent no.2.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 266 dated 12.7.2004 registered under Sections
279. 304-A IPC at Police Station, Shahabad and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that the parties have reached amicable settlement by way of compromise reduced into writing on 31.5.2008.
Mr. J.S.Sandhu, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 and filed his power of attorney. He identified respondent no. 2 Harpreet Singh s/o Balbir Singh, who is present in Court.
It is further stated by the counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of compromise dated 31.5.2008 (Annexure P-3), the dispute has been settled once for all. The compromise as stated in Annexure P-3 is reproduced as under:-
First party Amarjit Singh s/o Shri Bhag Singh, resident of Village Duliyana, Police Station, Mulana, District Ambala. Second party Harpreet Singh s/o Sh. Balbir Singh, Caste Jat, resident of Surakhpur, Police Station, Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. Crl. Misc. No. M-16674 of2008 2
Today on 31.5.2008, a compromise between both the parties have arrived at by the Panchayat. Now the second party would not take any action against first party. On the FIR No. 266, dated 12.7.2004 lodged by first party against second party, there would be no action. The differences of both the parties have been sorted out.
Both are young men and now they want to lead their life in peace and brotherhood. The second party would not take any action against first party in connection with the aforesaid FIR. In case he would have to give statement in any Court, then he would give the statement."
The Court had categorically asked the complainant-respondent no.2, who is present in the Court, about the compromise to which he has stated that he has entered into compromise without any coercion or undue influence.
In view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and ultimately the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution. The pendency of the case shall be an exercise in futility. Moreover, Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225 has authoritatively held that even non-compoundable offences can also be settled by way of compromise. In the aforesaid case, it was 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".Crl. Misc. No. M-16674 of2008 3
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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-16674 of2008 4 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 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-16674 of2008 5 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-16674 of2008 6 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).
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. 266 dated 12.7.2004 registered under Sections 279. 304-A IPC at Police Station, Shahabad and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
July 28, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) rekha Judge