Allowed

Ajay Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Mar 2011CRM-M/24016/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 498-A IPC based on a compromise between parties. The court held that Section 482 CrPC permits quashing non-compoundable offences for harmony, aligning with earlier precedents.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.113 dated 02.10.2007, Sections 498-A, 34 IPC, and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Ajay Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-24016 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Criminal Misc. No.M-24016 of 2010 Date of Decision : 09.03.2011

Ajay Kakkar & Others

....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana & another

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶10

Present: Mr Surinder Gandhi Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

¶11

¶12

Daya Chaudhary, J.(Oral)

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of Ajay Kakkar, Sunil Kumar, Jaswant Rai and Savitri for quashing of FIR No.113 dated 02.10.2007 under Sections 498-A,34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak on the basis of compromise annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition.

¶14

Notice of motion was issued to the respondents on 19.08.2010. Vide order dated 22.11.2010, parties were directed to appear before trial court and to make statement with regard to compromise and trial court was also directed to send a report to this Court in this regard.

¶15

In compliance of the order dated 22.11.2011, a report has been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak wherein, it has been mentioned that statement 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. As per statement of the complainant, it has been stated that a compromise has been effected between her and the petitioners and she has no objection with regard to quashing of the FIR and has

¶16

Criminal Misc. No.M-24016 of 2010 2

¶17

also received an amount of `.5,50,000/-. The separate statements of the accused as well as the complainant are on record.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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 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.

¶21

Criminal Misc. No.M-24016 of 2010 3

¶22

(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.

¶23

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:-

¶24

“ 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”.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

Criminal Misc. No.M-24016 of 2010 4

¶28

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.

¶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 Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

¶30

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

¶31

Compromise in modern society is the sine qua non of

¶32

Criminal Misc. No.M-24016 of 2010 5

¶33

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).

¶34

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.FIR No.113 dated 02.10.2007 as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶35

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) Judge

¶36

09^th March,2011. Seema-II

Ajay Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana 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

Jagjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Devinder Pal Mehta and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bant Singh and Ors. Vs Jaspinder Singh and Ors.

Sidharth Jain Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Joginder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.