Allowed

Raj Rani and Others v. State of Punjab and Anothers

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Aug 2008CRM-M/11546/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of FIR involving allegations of cheating and forgery. Court allowed quashing after parties conceded to an amicable settlement by a compromise agreement made voluntarily without coercion.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 126 dated 19.5.2007 and all subsequent proceedings registered thereunder under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC have been quashed.

Raj Rani and Others Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-11546 of 2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-11546 of 2008 Date of Decision:1.8.2008

¶5

Smt. Raj Rani and others

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Present:Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for the petitioners

¶12

Mr. I.P.S.Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Suvir Sheokand, Advocate for Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate for the respondent no.2.

¶14

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

¶15

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 126 dated 19.5.2007 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station, Division No. 5, Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that the parties have reached amicable settlement by way of compromise (Annexure P-2)

¶16

Mr. Suvir Sheokand, Advocate is appearing as proxy counsel on behalf of respondent no.2. He identifies respondent no. 2 Neelam Rani w/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar who is present in the Court.

¶17

It is further stated by the counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of compromise (Annexure P-2), the dispute has been settled once for all. The conditions of compromise as stated in Annexure P-2 are reproduced as under:-

¶18

“1. That the Party No.1 of the second party i.e. Raj Rani, shall withdraw her suit for specific performance and she will not claim any right, title or interest in the plot measuring 265 sq. yards situated at Preet Vihar, Ludhiana in future.

¶19

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M-11546 of 2008

¶21

That the First Party shall not pursue the above said FIR and undertakes to make any statement in that behalf before any authority/court.

¶22

That the Second Party shall file a petition for quashing of FIR No. 126 dated 19.5.2007, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana as well as all proceedings arising therefrom in Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The First Party shall not have any objection to the said FIR as well as consequential proceedings arising therefrom being quashed qua all the accused mentioned therein.

¶23

That the First Party shall render all cooperation as is required for getting the aforesaid FIR as well as proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the accused mentioned therein.

¶24

That the parties shall withdraw all their respective cases/complaints filed by them against each other and undertake not to file any complaints against each other for the same cause.

¶25

That all the parties to this deed undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions of this compromise deed.

¶26

That all the parties by virtue of the present deed of compromise, which is being filed in the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court undertake to abide by the terms and conditions of this compromise and failure on part of either of the parties to abide by the terms and conditions of this compromise would render them liable for facing consequences of violating the undertaking given to the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.

¶27

¶28

Crl. Misc. No. M-11546 of 2008

¶29

That the parties have entered into this deed of compromise with their own free will and in a sound disposition of mind and body without any pressure from anyone and the compromise is not actuated by force, fraud or undue influence..”

¶30

The Court had categorically asked the complainant-respondent no.2, who is present in the Court, about the compromise to which she has stated that she has entered into compromise without any coercion or undue influence.

¶31

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:-

¶32

“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”.

¶33

In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya

¶34

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:-

¶35

“The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when

¶36

¶37

Crl. Misc. No. M-11546 of 2008

¶38

parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.”

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

Crl. Misc. No. M-11546 of 2008

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

Crl. Misc. No. M-11546 of 2008 6

¶48

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 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.”

¶49

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 noncompoundable 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).

¶50

Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case,

¶51

¶52

Crl. Misc. No. M-11546 of 2008

¶53

once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, FIR No. 126 dated 19.5.2007 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station, Division No. 5, Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings

¶54

arising therefrom are quashed.

¶55

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶56

August 1, 2008 rekha

¶57

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

Raj Rani and Others v. State of Punjab and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Rani and Others v. State of Punjab and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarwan and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Savitri Vs State of Haryana

Baljinder Singh Alias Kala Vs State of Punjab

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ram Preet Vs State of Punjab