The Court allowed the petition for quashing an FIR and subsequent proceedings on the ground of a settlement and compromise between the parties, citing inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to ensure social harmony.
The FIR bearing No. 164 dated 03.04.2009 and subsequent proceedings were 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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-18095 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-18095 of 2011 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: September 01, 2011
Ashok Kumar and another
.........PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another
........ RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. S.S. Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. RVS Chugh, Advocate, for respondent no. 2.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)
This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing of FIR bearing No. 164 dated 03.04.2009 under Sections 452/323/506/34 IPC, P.S. City Hansi Annexure P-1.
It has been pleaded on behalf of respondent no. 2 that the disputes have been settled by way of compromise.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has filed affidavit of Ravinder Nath-respondent no. 2, sworn on 01.09.2011. Ravinder Nath, as identified by his counsel, Mr. RVS Chugh, Advocate is present in Court and states that the disputes have been settled by way of compromise and he does not want to prosecute the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that since the parties have settled their disputes by way of compromise, State would have no objection to quashing of the FIR and proceedings.
Crl. Misc. No. M-18095 of 2011
2
I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel.
A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, has considered the issue whether the High court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings or allow the compounding of the offences in the event of the parties entering into a compromise in the cases which have been specified as non-compoundable offences and in particular, in view of the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgment for the purpose of this case is contained in paras no. 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 which reads as under:-
“24. While parting with this part, it appears necessary to add that the settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the court. The settlement must be just and fair besides being free from the undue pressure, the court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution...........
27. The power to do complete jusstice 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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-18095 of 2011
3
28. 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 rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecase 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 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.
30. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to
Crl. Misc. No. M-18095 of 2011
4
be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list not 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. This 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 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.”
Since respondent no. 2 is the victim and is not ready to prosecute the petitioners, continuance of proceedings shall be an exercise in futility. The petitioners and respondents are residents of same area and, therefore, peace and harmony in the area would also be disturbed if the proceedings are allowed to be continued.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as given out above in context of law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), relevant portion of which has been extracted above, the petition is
Crl. Misc. No. M-18095 of 2011
5
allowed. FIR bearing No. 164 dated 03.04.2009 under Sections 452/323/506/34 IPC, P.S. City Hansi and subsequent proceedings are
hereby quashed.
01.09.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings under non-compoundable offences should be quashed due to a compromise between parties.
Whether the High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings beyond the bar of Section 320 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh v. State of PunjabExplained¶22
Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Kumar
State of Haryana
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
