Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajaib Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 November, 2009
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-28657 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 23.11.2009
Ajaib Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.D.S.Sidhu, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of cross-version case in FIR No.175 dated 29.5.2005 under Sections 324/323/34 IPC and Section 325 was added later on, registered on the statement of respondent No.-2 Wariam Singh at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure P-3).
Counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of the compromise deed dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure P-3) prays for quashing of the cross- version case in FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. He contends that with the passage of time and with the intervention of the respectables, compromise has been entered into between the parties. There does not exist any dispute between the parties due to existence of the Crl.Misc.No.M-28657 of 2009 (O&M) -2- compromise deed dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure P-3). The complainants also does not have any objection to the quashing of the cross-version case in FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Reply on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 has been filed in Court today and is taken on record. In the said reply, factum of compromise has been admitted. On the basis of the said reply, counsel for the complainant-respondents No.2 and 3 states that respondents No.2 and 3 do not have any objection to the quashing of the cross-version case in FIR and all consequential proceeding arising therefrom in the light of the compromise and they do not want to press the allegations against the petitioners.
Wariam Singh son of Jag Singh, Sobha Singh son of Jag Singh are present in Court and have been identified by their counsel. They state that a compromise dated 11.9.2009 has indeed been entered into between the parties, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. On the basis of the said compromise, they do not want to pursue the allegations which have been levelled against the petitioners in the cross- version case in FIR and have no objection to the quashing of the cross- version case in FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
In the light of the fact that the matter having been amicably resolved and the compromise having been entered into between the parties who are stated to be closely related with each other (real brothers), interest of justice would be duly served with the quashing of the cross-version case in FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom as there is no dispute as on today.
Crl.Misc.No.M-28657 of 2009 (O&M) -3-
A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-28657 of 2009 (O&M) -4- 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 the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned cross- version in FIR No.175 dated 29.5.2005 under Sections 324/323/34 IPC and Section 325 which was added later on, registered on the statement of respondent No.2 Wariam Singh at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
November 23, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE