Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Pal Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 20 November, 2008
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 29222-M of 2008
Date of Decision: 28.11.2008
***
Ajay Pal Singh & Anr.
.. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate
for petitioners.
Mr. H.S. Sangha, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Through the instant petition quashing of FIR No.99 dated 29.7.2004, under Sections 307, 452, 323, 148, 149 IPC and 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act, Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar, has been sought, on the basis of compromise.
The facts as culled out from the petition are that on 28.7.2004 a scuffle took place between the petitioners and others and complainant side consisting of complainant Bikramjit Singh and injured Dalbir Singh, Mohan Singh, Madanmohan Singh and Baljit Singh. On the statement made by Bikramjit Singh, the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioners and others.
It has been contended that the parties have settled the dispute amicably with the intervention of respectables and the complainant side has decided not to pursue the case against the petitioners. Compromise (annexure P-2) as well as affidavits of Dalbir Singh (Annexure P-3), Mohan 2 Singh (Annexure P-4), Madanmohan Singh (Annexure P-5), Baljit Singh (Annexure P-6) and that of complainant Bikramjit Singh (Annexure P-7) have been placed on record containing the recitals of the parties having compromised the matter and their no objection as to the quashing of the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also authenticated the compromise and has stated at Bar that, as per his instructions, respondent No.2 has no objection in quashing of the impugned FIR.
It is apt to mention here that against the co-accused the impugned FIR has already stands quashed by this Court by virtue of order passed in Crl. Misc. No. 18319-M of 2008, in terms of the compromise effected between the parties.
By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.
In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in 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 Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder 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, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non- compoundable offence(s) has held as under:-
3"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."
In the instant case, as emerges from record, the parties, who are belonging to same village, have mutually settled their dispute and have put to rest the litigation. Since the complainant as well as injured have decided to withdraw from the prosecution, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution is nothing but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court. Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having arrived at between the parties, it is a fit case where 4 interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out.
Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings thereto, qua the petitioners are quashed.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 28, 2008 Jiten