Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhajan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 30 July, 2008
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Crl. Misc. No. 16479-M of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-16479 of 2008
Date of Decision:30.7.2008
Bhajan Singh and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present:- Mr. H.S.Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. I.P.S.Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 2 to 13.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 38 dated 7.4.2007 registered under Sections 452, 336, 324, 325, 326, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act at Police Station, Shahkot, District Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom and also quashing of challan against respondents no. 2 to 13 which has been presented on the basis of case registered by Bhajan Singh, petitioner no.1 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 7.6.2008 (Annexure P-3) Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the aforesaid FIR has been registered at the instance of respondent No.2 Amrik Singh.
Counsel for the respondents states that respondents No. 2 to 13 are Crl. Misc. No. 16479-M of 2008 2 the accused in complaint made by petitioner No.1 Bhajan Singh in a case of cross version.
Both the counsel for the parties submit that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and compromise deed has been executed on 7.6.2008, which is attached as Annexure P-3 with the petition.
Amrik Singh, complainant of the aforesaid FIR, who is present in the Court, has been identified by his counsel Sh. Ashok Giri, Advocate whereas the petitioner Bhajan Singh, who is present in the Court, has been identified by Sh.H.S.Bakshi, Advocate.
It is further stated by the counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of compromise (Annexure P-3), the dispute has been settled once for all. The conditions of compromise as stated in Annexure P-3 are reproduced as under:-
"1. That the parties are involved in long drawn litigation both criminal as well as civil.
2. That with the intervention of the common friends, relatives and respectables of the area, the parties have resolved their differences and have compromised all civil as well as criminal cases.
3. That as per compromise, the status of land measuring 19K- 17 Marla comprised in Khasra Nos. 37 owned by Pb. Wakf Board shall henceforth be as under:-
Sh. Mohan Singh, Baldev Singh and Hira Singh sons of Gurmej Singh shall continue to be in possession of 07 Kanals 10 Marla land, whereas Balkar Singh s/o Dalip Singh shall be in possession of 01 kanals 07 Marla land and remaining 11 K-0mls land shall be under the possession of Balwant s/o Bagga Singh and Karnail Singh s/o Sucha Singh in equal share, Bhajan Singh etc. shall have no right to Crl. Misc. No. 16479-M of 2008 3 interfere in their possession.
4. This is also agreed that land measuring 15 marla land out of 01 K-10 Marla comprised in Khasra No. 36 is given to Balmik community for the use of same as crematory i.e. Burrial ground.
5. That as per compromise, parties have agreed to withdraw the civil cases as well as criminal cases from the Courts details as under:-
Case titled State v/s Bhajan Singh etc. vide FIR No. 38 dated 07.04.07 u/s 323/324/326/452/148/149 read with Section 25 Indian Arms Act pending in the court of Sh. Ashok Kapor, JMIC, Nakodar shall abe withdrawn by Amrik Singh s/o Ujjagar Singh. Whereas cross case titled State v/s Amrik Singh u/s 323/324/325/148/149 IPC along with supplementary challan u/s 308 IPC shall be withdrawn by Bhajan Singh.
6. That both the parties undertake that they will do all the necessary acts required for withdrawal the cases and shall move the appropriate courts including Hon'ble High Court and shall sign all the necessary papers, declarations, application and all other documents required in the process of withdrawal of the cases.
7. That the parties undertake that henceforth they shall forego their ego, live peacefully and shall foreget their past bitterness.
8. That this compromise is in the best interests of the parties as they are related to each other being from the same brotherhood and same village. This is also in the best Crl. Misc. No. 16479-M of 2008 4 interest of the village and the area as after this compromise parties shall put an end to their rivalry and there shall be no more litigation or fights."
The Court had categorically asked the complainant-respondent no.2 and petitioner no.1, who are present in the Court, about the compromise to which they have stated that they have 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, a 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".
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."Crl. Misc. No. 16479-M of 2008 5
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 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 Crl. Misc. No. 16479-M of 2008 6 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. 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 Crl. Misc. No. 16479-M of 2008 7 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 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. 38 dated 7.4.2007 registered under Sections 452, 336, 324, 325, 326, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act at Police Station, Shahkot, District Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom and also quashing of challan against respondents no. 2 to 13 which has been presented on the basis of Crl. Misc. No. 16479-M of 2008 8 case registered by Bhajan Singh, petitioner no.1 and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
July 30, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) rekha Judge