Applying Kulwinder Singh's case, the Court holds that Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows quashing of non-compoundable offences upon compromise to secure justice and prevent abuse of process, regardless of Section 320 bar.
FIR No. 128 dated 29.8.2007 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No. M-12107 of 2009
(1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. M-12107 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.8.2009
Gurmit Singh alias Lely
...Petitioner
vs
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent no. 1.
Mr. Kulbhushan Soi, Advocate, for respondent no. 2.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 128 dated 29.8.2007, registered at Police Station Mehna, District Moga, under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute between the parties has been compromised with the intervention of the well-wishers and keeping in view that peace and harmony is maintained in the village. The petitioner has also placed on record copy of order dated 10.4.2009 passed in a Claim Petition filed by respondent no. 2 and her husband Baldev Singh with regard to the accident in question, which was dismissed as withdrawn on the statements of the claimants. In the said accident daughter of the complainant Kamalpreet Kaur aged three months died because of serious injuries suffered by her. She was sleeping on the coat lying just close to the main road. Affidavit of the complainantSukhwinder Kaur has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the matter has been compromised, the FIR deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225.
Respondent no.2-complainant Sukhwinder Kaur, Karam Singh and Jinder Kaur, who were alleged to be witnesses of the occurrence, had appeared in Court in person, and admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and stated that they have no objection in case FIR in question is quashed. They have also made statements to this effect in the court. Karam Singh and Jinder Kaur have also filed their affidavits with regard to the factum of compromise between the parties in the court.
Criminal Misc. No. M-12107 of 2009
(2)
Dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise, a Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005 (2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723 , opined as under:-
“The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.”
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.
Criminal Misc. No. M-12107 of 2009
(3)
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.
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
Criminal Misc. No. M-12107 of 2009
(4)
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 non-compoundable 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).
Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, FIR No. 128 dated 29.8.2007, registered at Police Station Mehna, District Moga, under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
19.8.2009 vs.
( Rajesh Bindal) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash a criminal FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after a compromise in a non-compoundable offence to prevent abuse of process of law.
Whether the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. regarding non-compoundable offences restricts the inherent power of the High Court to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh versus State of PunjabExplained¶16
Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225
Dharambir v. State of HaryanaExplained¶20
Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005 (2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723
Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and othersDistinguished¶22
Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurmit Singh alias Lely
State of Punjab
Sukhwinder Kaur
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
