Allowed

Manjit Singh & Ors. v. Ut of Chandigarh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Sept 2011CRM-M/19553/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition to quash an FIR involving cheating and forgery under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relying on the principle of compromise after witnesses pleaded settlement, holding that inherent powers allow quashing non-compoundable offences to secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR bearing No. 161 dated 27.05.2011 and subsequent proceedings under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B were quashed.

Manjit Singh & Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-19553 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-19553 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: September 01, 2011

¶5

Manjit Singh and others

¶6

.........PETITIONER(S)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

U.T. Chandigarh and another

¶9

........ RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶11

Present: Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶12

Ms. Ashima Mor, Advocate, for U.T., Chandigarh.

¶13

Mr. Shikha Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 2.

¶14

AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing of FIR bearing No. 161 dated 27.05.2011 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, P.S. Sector 17, Chandigarh, on the basis of compromise.

¶16

Affidavit of respondent no. 2-complainant has been filed in Court and is taken on record. Complainant-Gurmeet Kaur, as identified by her counsel, Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate, is present in Court and states that on intervention of respectables, compromise has been effected.

¶17

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.

¶18

I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel.

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-19553 of 2011

¶20

¶21

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 of 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:-

¶22

“24. While parting with this part, it appears necessary

¶23

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...........

¶24

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.

¶25

28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine

¶26

Crl. Misc. No. M-19553 of 2011

¶27

¶28

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

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

30. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of

¶31

Crl. Misc. No. M-19553 of 2011

¶32

¶33

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.”

¶34

Since the respondents are the victims and are 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.

¶35

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 allowed. FIR bearing No. 161 dated 27.05.2011 under Sections

¶36

Crl. Misc. No. M-19553 of 2011

¶37

¶38

420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, P.S. Sector 17, Chandigarh and subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶39

01.09.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE

¶40

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶41

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Manjit Singh & Ors. v. Ut of Chandigarh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Singh & Ors. v. Ut of Chandigarh & 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

Dalbir and Ors. Vs Suraj Mal and Ors.

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar @ Baljinder @ Babbu Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh Vs Gurmel Singh

Kamini Devi Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.