Allowed

Gurpreet Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Mar 2011CRM-M/3127/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash FIR No. 192 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The court quashed proceedings pending a compromise between parties, citing the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 192 dated 29.10.2010 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Gurpreet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-3127 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

Crl. Misc. No. M-3127 of 2011 Date of Decision:21.03.2011

¶6

Gurpreet Singh and others

¶7

.....Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Punjab and another

¶10

.....Respondent

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶12

Present:Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

¶15

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral)

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C on behalf of petitioners namely, Gurpreet Singh, Harinder Singh and Harmeet Kaur for quashing of FIR No.192 dated 29.10.2010 registered under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar on the basis of compromise before Lok Adalat vide order dated 28.1.2011 which is annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition.

¶17

Notice of motion was issued on 1.2.2011.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and statements of the parties in this regard have been recorded before Permanent Lok Adalat at the time of filing of the application for anticipatory bail as the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. Statements of the parties are annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that compromise has been effected between the parties with certain terms and

¶19

-2-

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M-3127 of 2011

¶21

conditions as mentioned in the statement and the complainant has also affirmed the factum of compromise. She has stated that she has no claim regarding dowry articles, maintenance against the petitioners and she has no objection in quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record copy of the statement recorded in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. An amount of Rs.8 lacs has been paid in the Court against total amount of Rs.16 lacs as settled in the compromise.

¶22

Since the matter has been compromised between the parties and the complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR, 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, 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

¶24

-3-

¶25

Crl. Misc. No. M-3127 of 2011

¶26

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.

¶27

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:-

¶28

“ 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”.

¶29

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

¶30

-4-

¶31

Crl. Misc. No. M-3127 of 2011

¶32

Cr.P.C.

¶33

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.

¶34

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 ofd 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.

¶35

The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercise 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

¶36

Crl. Misc. No. M-3127 of 2011

¶37

-5-

¶38

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.

¶39

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 noncompoundable 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).

¶40

For the reasons recorded above and having regard to the principles laid sown by the Five -Judges Bench of this Court in case of

¶41

-6-

¶42

Crl. Misc. No. M-3127 of 2011

¶43

Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.192 dated 29.10.2010 registered under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶44

March 21, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE

Gurpreet Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Singh 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

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

Gurwinder Singh @ Goggi Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Preeti Rani Vs State of Punjab and Others

Karamjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surender Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sukhjinder Pal Singh & Anr., Vs State of Punjab & Ors.