Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahinder Singh Basaiti vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 May, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Criminal Misc. No M-38496 of 2011(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No M-38496 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: 8.5.2012
Mahinder Singh Basaiti
.....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. S.S.Salar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional A.G., Punjab.
Ms. Manisha Sahota, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):
The petitioner, through the instant petition, has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR No. 190 dated 23.8.2010 under Sections 420, 406 Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon District Ludhiana and the consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion was issued.
Vide order dated 14.3.2012 passed by this Court, the Criminal Misc. No M-38496 of 2011(O&M) 2 parties were directed to appear before the learned trial court for getting their statements recorded. In compliance of the order dated 14.3.2012, the parties got their statements recorded and report dated 3.4.2012 sent by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-
cum-Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, has been received, which is available on record of the case alongwith the statements of the parties. In terms of the report received from the learned Magistrate, compromise arrived at between the parties has been found to be a genuine one and parties got their statements recorded voluntarily without any pressure or coercion.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the parties have decided to bury the hatchet and to live peacefully, continuation of the FIR would be nothing but sheer abuse of the process of the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned FIR alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed so as to prevent the abuse of the process of law.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that it is in the interest of justice to quash the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
The view taken by this Court finds support from the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shiji @ Pappu and others versus Radhika and another, 2012 (1) RCR (criminal) 9 and also from judgment rendered by the larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and Criminal Misc. No M-38496 of 2011(O&M) 3 another reported as 2007 (3) RCR (criminal) 1052. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 of the judgment in Shiji's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:
"It is manifest that simply because an
offence is not compoundable under Section 320
IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to
refuse exercise of its power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the Criminal Misc. No M-38496 of 2011(O&M) 4 accused stand charged are non-
compoundable. The inherent powers of the
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are
not for that purpose controlled by Section
320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must
hasten to add that the plenitude of the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself,
makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise
the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Criminal Misc. No M-38496 of 2011(O&M) 5 Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked."
Coming back to the given fact situation of the present case, it is clear from the report submitted by learned Magistrate that the parties have arrived at an out of Court settlement without any pressure and the compromise is a genuine one. When parties themselves have decided to proceed on the path of peace, in such a situation, continuation of the prosecution any further would be nothing but wastage of valuable time of the Court and would amount to the abuse of the process of law because no chance of conviction is left.
In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 190 dated 23.8.2010 under Sections 420, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon District Ludhiana and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed.
Instant petition stands allowed.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 8.5.2012 AK Sharma