High Court allowed petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 34, and 506 IPC, relying on a valid voluntary compromise and the magistrate's report confirming the absence of coercion.
Quashed FIR No.263 dated 23.09.2008 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
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-1092 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-1092 of 2011 Date of Decision : 15.03.2011
Sandeep and Others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr Rohit Singh Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Verma, AAG, Haryana.
Daya Chaudhary, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of Sandeep, Vijay and Kamla for quashing of FIR No.263 dated 23.09.2008 under Sections 498-A, 323, 34, 506 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Julana, District Jind on the basis of compromise annexed as Annexure P-1 with the petition.
Notice of motion was issued to the respondents on 31.01.2011. In the cross-case i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-34770 of 2010, while issuing notice of motion, parties were also directed to appear before trial court and trial court was directed to send a report with regard to the validity or otherwise of the compromise, after recording the statements of the parties.
In compliance of the order dated 24.01.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. No.M-34770 of 2010, a report has been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind wherein, it has mentioned that statements of both the parties have been recorded and complainant as well as accused have categorically stated that they have compromised the matter amicably without any pressure or coercion. Complainant
2
Criminal Misc. No.M-1092 of 2011
has also mentioned that she has no objection in quashing of the said FIR. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, has also mentioned in his report that the parties had entered into compromise voluntarily without any pressure. The separate statements of the accused as well as the complainant are on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the complainant has no objection in quashing of the said FIR.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. The complainant herself does not want to pursue the proceedings and it shall be merely a formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court as complainant would not support the case of prosecution in view of compromise between the parties. It would be in the interest of the parties as well as in the large interest of the society, peace and harmony and in order to save both the families from avoidable litigation that the compromise arrived at between them is accepted by this Court.
It has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney (1980)1 SCC 63 that “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
Criminal Misc. No.M-1092 of 2011 3
achieve the ends of justice. Relying on the views adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) R.C.R. (Cri) 1052 that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C., offence non-compoundable but parties entering into compromise, High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
While 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 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426: 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 424: 2005 (2) Law Herald 723 (P&H) (FB), opined as under:-
“ 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”.
No embargo, be in the shape of section 320 (9) Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
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 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
4
Criminal Misc. No.M-1092 of 2011
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 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 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.
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 Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised ExDebitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined parameters 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 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 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
Criminal Misc. No.M-1092 of 2011 5
unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.
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 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 list 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).
For the reasons recorded above and having regard to the principles laid down by the Five -Judges Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.263 dated 23.09.2008 as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
15th March,2011. Seema-II
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the proceedings of a non-compoundable offence under Section 482 CrPC based on a compromise between parties.
Whether the presence of statutory bar under Section 320 CrPC precludes the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in matrimonial disputes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya SawhneyExplained¶22
Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney (1980)1 SCC 63 · Who else cites this
Kulwinder Singh v. State of PunjabFollowed¶24
Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) R.C.R. (Cri) 1052
Dharambir v. State of HaryanaFollowed¶25
Dharambir v. State of Haryana 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426
Sandeep and Others
State of Haryana
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
