Allowed

Assa Ram and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Mar 2011CRM-M/13689/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed quashing petition for FIR regarding matrimonial disputes under Section 482 Cr.P.C., accepting a compromise between parties to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice in non-compoundable offences.

What did the court decide?

Quashed all criminal proceedings pending against petitioners emanating from FIR No. 24 dated 29.1.2005 under Sections 406/498-A IPC.

Assa Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl.Misc. No. M- 13689 of 2010

¶3

Date of decision: 18.3.2011

Assa Ram and others

......Petitioners

Vs.

State of Punjab and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

¶12

Mr.Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.24 dated 29.1.2005 under Sections 406/498-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar on the basis of compromise annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition.

¶16

Notice of motion was issued on 13th May, 2010. In response to notice of motion, replies on behalf of official respondents as well as private respondents have been filed which are on record.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that he wants to withdraw the present petition qua petitioner No.2 at this stage and also submits that the present petition be treated to have been filed on behalf of the remaining petitioners, namely, Assa Ram, Harbans Kaur, Ranjit Kumar , Bimla and Joginder

¶18

Crl.Misc. No. M- 13689 of 2010 [2]

¶19

Pal. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in view of the compromise effected between the parties, against an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has been paid by way of Bank Draft No.174043 dated 2.2.2011 and the same has been handed over to learned counsel for the complainant in the Court which has further been handed over to the complainant who is also present in the Court. Even on the asking of the Court, the complainant has stated that the compromise has been effected and she has no objection in quashing of the FIR. The complainant has also stated that name of her father has wrongly been mentioned as Kirpal Chand instead of Gurpal Chand in the draft and if any objection is raised by the Bank at the time of en-cashment of the said draft, the petitioners would give new draft and the learned counsel for the petitioners has given an undertaking that in case of any objection by the bank, new draft would be given. A photocopy of the said draft has been submitted in the Court and the same is placed on record. As per terms and conditions of the compromise, both the parties would withdraw their cases registered against each other and no fresh case would be registered in future except petition for divorce with mutual consent. The divorce petition shall be filed before the competent Court of law and all dowry articles would be given to the complainant. The complainant is satisfied with the compromise and she has no objection in quashing of the said FIR qua the petitioners, except Mohan Lal husband (petitioner No.2) who is residing in Italy and this petition was filed through Power of

¶20

Crl.Misc. No. M- 13689 of 2010 [3]

¶21

Attorney. Learned counsel for the petitioners have opted to withdraw the petition qua husband of the complainant at this stage as he is away to Italy.

¶22

After hearing 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 these 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 and to maintain 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.

¶23

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 achieve the ends of justice. Relying on the views adopted by the

¶24

Crl.Misc. No. M- 13689 of 2010 [4]

¶25

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.

¶26

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:-

¶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”.

¶28

No embargo, be in the shape of section 320 (9) Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under

¶29

Crl.Misc. No. M- 13689 of 2010 [5]

¶30

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶31

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 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.

¶32

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 noncompoundable 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.

¶33

The power under Section 482 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 parameters to

¶34

Crl.Misc. No. M- 13689 of 2010 [6]

¶35

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 unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.

¶36

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 lis between the parties after a

¶37

Crl.Misc. No. M- 13689 of 2010 [7]

¶38

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).

¶39

For the reasons recorded above and having regard to the principles laid down by the Five -Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) that since the parities have compromised the matter and the complainant does not want to continue with the proceedings in future, the present petition deserves to be allowed. Even otherwise also in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

¶40

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and all criminal proceedings pending against petitioners namely, Assa Ram, Harbans Kaur, Ranjit Kumar, Bimla and Joginder emanating from FIR No. 24 dated 29.1.2005 under Sections 406/498-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar are quashed.

¶41

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶42

March 18, 2010. raghav

Assa Ram and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Assa Ram and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Shivraj Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Santokh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurwinder Singh @ Goggi Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Preeti Rani Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sheela & Anr. Vs State of Haryana etc.