Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Harpreet Singh And Ors. vs Amandeep Kour on 30 August, 2017
Author: Sanjay Kumar Gupta
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
Petition u/s 561-A No.392/2016 &MP No.01/2016 & MP No.1/2017
Date of order:-30.08.2017
Harpreet Singh and ors. V. Amandeep Kour
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta
Appearing Counsel:
For the petitioner(s): Mr. P. N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. J. A. Hamal, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) None.
i. Whether approved for
reporting in Press/Media : Yes/No/Optional
ii. Whether to be reported in
Digest/Journal : Yes/No
1. Through the medium of instant petition, petitioners had sought quashing of
proceedings including summoning order passed by the Court of 3 rd
Additional Munsiff, Ist Class, Jammu in complaint titled Amandeep Kour
Vs. Supreet Singh Raina & ors.
2. On 01.08.2017, petitioner No.5 has moved one miscellaneous application
being MP No.01/2017 stating therein that there has taken place a
compromise between husband and wife. It is stated that unfortunately, due
to some misunderstanding between petitioner No.5 and the respondent,
which had resulted in filing of application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. by
respondent before Court below. Now the parties have compromised the
issue and have reached an understanding wherein the marriage has been
561-A Cr.P.C. No.392 of 2016 & connected MPs Page 1 of 7
saved and parties are living happily as husband and wife for quite some
time now and even at present. An order in proceedings under Section 488
Cr.P.C. was also passed by the Court below on 05.06.2017 wherein
respondent has withdrawn the said proceedings, copy whereof is annexed
as Annexure-A. It is further stated that since parties, i.e. petitioner No.5
and the respondent, are living as husband and wife together along with their
kid, they have thus compromised everything and are happily residing. It is
stated that Divorce Petition filed by respondent has also been compromised
and order passed thereon is also annexed as Annexure-B with the
application.
3. This Court vide order dated 28.08.2017, directed Registrar Judicial to
record the statements of the parties and their counsel. Registrar Judicial has
recorded the statements of the parties and that of learned counsel for the
petitioners. The same are placed on record.
4. Bare perusal of the statements placed on record, it is evident that parties
have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled their
differences, residing together and discharging their duties as husband and
wife.
5. In case titled Ram Singh & anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 11
(2005) DMC 412, it is held as under :
"6. I have given my anxious consideration to the above arguments and have
gone through the case laws cited at the Bar. It is well settled that while
exercising inherent jurisdiction the Court should encourage genuine
settlements of the cases arising out of matrimonial disputes. While
considering the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section
498A, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in V.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State
of Haryana, , have observed as under:
"There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing
Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman
by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added
with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture
the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.
The hypertechnical view would be counter-productive and would act against
561-A Cr.P.C. No.392 of 2016 & connected MPs Page 2 of 7
interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added.
There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the
proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling
earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code."
7. The present case also arises out of the matrimonial dispute between the
parties. Undisputedly the parties have entered into a written compromise
and are living peacefully. However, the question that still emerges for
consideration of this Court is whether after conviction having been
recorded, the offence can be ordered to be compounded and/or the criminal
proceedings pending in the Appellate Court can be ordered to be dropped?
8. In O.P. Dholikia's case (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court
while dealing with a case arising out of offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, considered the question as to what is the
proper stage for compounding the offence. Their Lordships found force
with the argument of the Counsel for the stage that conviction and sentence
having been upheld by all the three Forums, the Apex Court need not
interfere with the same as it was open for the parties to enter into a
compromise at an earlier stage when the appeal was pending. However,
taking into consideration the nature of offence in question and the fact that
complainant and the accused had already entered into a compromise, Their
Lordships thought it appropriate to grant permission, in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the present case to compound and accordingly
annulled the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act.
9. In Govinda's case (supra) the accused were convicted and sentenced for
offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. and appeal against conviction was
pending before the Appellate Court. During pendency of appeal, the parties
entered into a compromise and ultimately invoked inherent jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. This Court refused to invoke inherent
jurisdiction for assuming direction to compound the offence under Section
489A, I.P.C. But considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in series
of decisions referred to in the judgment, this Court ordered for quashing the
proceedings in appeal holding that continuance of proceedings would be an
abuse of process of law and would not be in the interest of justice.
10. Evidently thus, the present case is squarely covered by the decision of
this Court in Govind and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (supra). Therefore,
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as stated
hereinabove, the continuance of proceedings in appeal pending before the
Appellate Court, in my considered view would not be in the interest of
justice and keeping the proceedings pending would amount to abuse of the
process of Court.
11. In the result, this petition is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal
Appeal No. 28/2003 Ram Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, filed against
the judgment and order dated 10.12.2003, pending in the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg, District Bharatpur are quashed.
Necessarily the conviction and sentence under Section 498A, I.P.C. under
the judgment and order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the Trial Court stands
annulled.
561-A Cr.P.C. No.392 of 2016 & connected MPs Page 3 of 7
7. In case titled Central Bureau of Investigation vs Sadhu Ram Singla & ors
reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 1312. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 8 to 16
as under:
"8. We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
the CBI and learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents at length
and carefully examined the materials placed on record. We have also taken
notice of the fact that the counsel for the appellant in High Court had
sought time for filing the reply but no reply was filed. We have also taken
notice of the fact that the High Court while quashing the said FIR and
consequential proceedings, has relied on the Full Bench judgment of that
High Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab &
Anr., 2007 (4) CTC 769, in which reliance was placed on the judgment
delivered by this Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mrs.
Kaushalya Sawhney & Ors., (1980) 1 SCC 63.
9. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the CBI has
drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in Manoj Sharma Vs. State
& Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 1, wherein it was observed by this Court:
"22. Since Section 320 CrPC has clearly stated which offences
are compoundable and which are not, the High Court or even
this Court would not ordinarily be justified in doing
something indirectly which could not be done directly. Even
otherwise, it ordinarily would not be a legitimate exercise of
judicial power under Article 226 of the Constitution or under
Section 482 CrPC to direct doing something which CrPC has
expressly prohibited. Section 320(9) CrPC expressly states
that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by
that Section. Hence, in my opinion, it would ordinarily not be
a legitimate exercise of judicial power to direct compounding
of a non-compoundable offence."
10. We further wish to supply emphasis on the judgment delivered by
this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R. Vasanthi Stanley &
Anr., (2016) 1 SCC 376, wherein it was observed:
"15. As far as the load on the criminal justice dispensation
system is concerned it has an insegregable nexus with speedy
trial. A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or
for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a
dent in the financial health of the institutions, is not to be
quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or the
561-A Cr.P.C. No.392 of 2016 & connected MPs Page 4 of 7
principle that when the matter has been settled it should be
quashed to avoid the load on the system. That can never be an
acceptable principle or parameter, for that would amount to
destroying the stem cells of law and order in many a realm
and further strengthen the marrows of the unscrupulous
litigations. Such a situation should never be conceived of."
11. Further reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case
of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad & Ors.,
(2009) 6 SCC 351, wherein it was held:
"39. Careful analysis of all these judgments clearly reveals
that the exercise of inherent powers would entirely depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. The object of
incorporating inherent powers in the Code is to prevent abuse
of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice."
12. Lastly, reliance was placed upon another judgment of this Court in
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 389,
wherein it was held by this Court:
"19. In this case, the High Court while exercising its inherent
power ignored all the facts viz. the impact of the offence, the
use of the State machinery to keep the matter pending for so
many years coupled with the fraudulent conduct of the
respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case at hand in the light of the decision in Vikram Anantrai
Doshi case, (2014) 15 SCC 29, the order of the High Court
cannot be sustained."
13. Resisting the aforesaid submissions it was canvassed by Mr.
Bishwajit Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents that High Court has judiciously and rightly considered the
facts and circumstances of the present case. Relying upon the judgment of
this Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303,
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously urged
that the offences in the present case are not heinous offences. He further
drew our attention towards the relevant part of Full Bench judgment of the
High Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra),
which was reproduced in the impugned judgment and the same is
reproduced hereunder:
"26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya
Sawhney & Ors.,(1980) 1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J.
aptly summed up the essence of compromise in the following words :-
561-A Cr.P.C. No.392 of 2016 & connected MPs Page 5 of 7The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.
27. 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. 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."
14. Since the present case pertains to the crucial doctrine of judicial restraint, we are of the considered opinion that encroaching into the right of the other organ of the government would tantamount clear violation of the rule of law which is one of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
We wish to supply emphasis on para 21 of the Manoj Sharma's case (supra) which is as follows:
"21. Ordinarily, we would have agreed with Mr. B.B. Singh. The doctrine of judicial restraint which has been emphasised repeatedly by this Court e.g. in Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008) 1 SCC 683 and Govt. of A.P. v. P. Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720, restricts the power of the Court and does not permit the Court to ordinarily encroach into the legislative or executive domain. As observed by this Court in the above decisions, there is a broad separation of powers in the Constitution and it would not be proper for one organ of the State to encroach into the domain of another organ."
15. Having carefully considered the singular facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, we see no reason to differ with the view taken in Manoj Sharma's case (supra) and several decisions of this Court delivered thereafter with respect to the doctrine of judicial restraint. In concluding hereinabove, we are not unmindful of the view recorded in the decisions cited at the Bar that depending on the attendant facts, continuance of the criminal proceedings, after a compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the accused, would amount to abuse of process of Court and an exercise in futility since the trial would be prolonged and ultimately, it may end in a decision which may be of no consequence to any of the parties."
561-A Cr.P.C. No.392 of 2016 & connected MPs Page 6 of 78. In view of the above law, this petition is allowed.
9. Consequently, all proceedings including summoning order passed by the Court of 3rd Additional Munsiff, Ist Class, Jammu in complaint titled Amandeep Kour Vs. Supreet Singh Raina & ors., are quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.
9. Copy of this order be sent to Court below for compliance.
(Sanjay Kumar Gupta) Judge Jammu 30.08.2017 Narinder 561-A Cr.P.C. No.392 of 2016 & connected MPs Page 7 of 7