Allowed

Vijay Chauhan v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Mar 2011CRM-M/2688/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition to quash an FIR under non-compoundable offences based on a genuine compromise between parties. The court held that Section 482 CrPC power extends beyond matrimonial cases to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice when the complainant withdraws support.

What did the court decide?

All criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner emanating from FIR No. 424 dated 31.12.2008 are quashed.

Vijay Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl.Misc. No. M- 2688 of 2010

¶3

Date of decision: 23.3.2011

Vijay Chauhan

......Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor,Sr.DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr.Tarundeep Khaira,Advocate, for the complainant.

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner Ramesh Chand for quashing of FIR No 424 dated 31.12.2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 10, Gurgaon and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶14

Notice of motion was issued on 29th January, 2010. Vide order dated 4th February, 2011, parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to compromise and the Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to record statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. It was also directed to send report along with statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the parties appeared before theIllaqa Magistrate and their statements were recorded. A report in this regard

¶15

Crl.Misc. No. M- 2688 of 2010 [2]

¶16

has been sent by the Illaqa Magistrate along with statement of the complainant. The complainant has stated that he has no objection in quashing of the FIR. It has also been mentioned in the report that the compromise between the parties was voluntary and there was no pressure or coercion on either of the party.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and the petitioner is not habitual offender as no case is there against him. Mr.S.S.Mor, learned Sr.DAG, Haryana also affirms that no other case is there against the petitioner.

¶18

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 himself 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.Misc. No. M- 2688 of 2010 [3]

¶21

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. (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.

¶22

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:-

¶23

“ 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

¶24

Crl.Misc. No. M- 2688 of 2010 [4]

¶25

itself, i.e, “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “ to secure the ends of justice”.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.Misc. No. M- 2688 of 2010 [5]

¶30

of justice.

¶31

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 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.

¶32

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,

¶33

Crl.Misc. No. M- 2688 of 2010 [6]

¶34

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 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).

¶35

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.

¶36

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and all criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner emanating from FIR No.424 dated 31.12.2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 10, Gurgaon are quashed.

¶37

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶38

March 23 2010 raghav

Vijay Chauhan v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Chauhan 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

Balraj Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harvinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kulwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sham Singh Vs Anil Kumar & Ors.

Baldev Singh Rattan Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Narain Singh Vs State of Punjab