Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devinder Sharma @ Sonu And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 25 April, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Crl.Misc.No.M-27448 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-27448 of 2011
Date of decision : 25.4.2012
Devinder Sharma @ Sonu and others .......Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents
...
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK **** Present : Mr.Mohinder Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl.A.G. Punjab.
...
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J The petitioners, through the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) have approached this court to seek quashing of the FIR No.239 dated 6.6.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 294, 341, 323, 440, 427, 355, 506, 148,149 IPC, registered at Police Station Mohali, Distt. Mohali, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court.
Notice of motion was issued. Respondents put appearance and Crl.Misc.No.M-27448 of 2011 2 admitted the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties by way of an out of court settlement.
The question that arises for consideration of this court is, whether the parties have arrived at a genuine compromise and in case it is so, whether the impugned criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
Vide order dated 7.12.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial court for getting their statements recorded and thereafter the learned trial court was to send its report. In compliance of the order dated 7.12.2011 passed by this court, report of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, vide No.18 dated 7.1.2012 has been received. The learned trial court has reported that the compromise has been found as a genuine one without any pressure, it being the result of an amicable settlement. Copies of the statements of the parties have also been enclosed.
Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that in view of the report received from the learned trial court, the instant petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed, as the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
Crl.Misc.No.M-27448 of 2011 3
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, it is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this court, so as to secure the ends of justice.
So far as the scope of the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., read with Section 320 Cr.P.C., for permitting the compounding of offence and based thereon quashing the criminal proceedings is concerned, a Larger Bench of this court in Kulvinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, has observed as under :-
"25. 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".
26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney V. Mrs.Kaushalya Crl.Misc.No.M-27448 of 2011 4 Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 SCC 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."
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.
28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the site 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. Crl.Misc.No.M-27448 of 2011 5 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. n 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 con-compoundable Crl.Misc.No.M-27448 of 2011 6 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.
30. 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 a 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 cogeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt Crl.Misc.No.M-27448 of 2011 7 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."
Considering the peculiar fact situation of the present case, this court has satisfied itself that an out of court settlement arrived at between the parties is a genuine one and without any pressure and there is left no chance of conviction. Continuation of the criminal proceedings, in such a situation, would be nothing but abuse of process of law and also the wastage of valuable time of the court.
The view taken by this court also finds a support from the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme court, rendered in Shiji @ Pappu and another Vs. Radhika and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Crl.) 9. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex court in para 13 of the judgement, 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-27448 of 2011 8 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 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-27448 of 2011 9 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 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-27448 of 2011 10 case in which the inherent powers may be invoked."
In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, I unhesitatingly conclude that answer to the question posed at the outset is in the affirmative. Further, since the compromise has been found to be genuine, leaving no chance of conviction, the instant one is a fit case for exercising the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. so as to secure the ends of justice and to avoid the abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the impugned FIR No.239 dated 6.6.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 294, 341, 323, 440, 427, 355, 506, 148,149 IPC, registered at Police Station Mohali, Distt. Mohali, is hereby ordered to be quashed, including the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Resultantly, the Criminal Misc. Petition stands allowed.
25.4.2012 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) GS JUDGE