The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR registered under sections 307, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Arms Act based on a compromise between the parties.
Impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 115 dated 13.10.2010 as well as all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioners are 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.
(1)
Crl. Misc. No. M-31402 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-31402 of 2010
DATE OF DECISION: 26.05.2011
Joan Singh & Ors.
..........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..........Respondents
BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:None for the petitioners.
Mr. L.S. Virk, DAG, Punjab.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Joan Singh, Balbir Kaur, Dalbara Singh, Nirbhai Singh, Lakhvir Singh and Gurwinder Singh for quashing of FIR No. 115 dated 13.10.2010 registered under Section 307,506,148,149 IPC and 25 and 27 of Arms Act at Police Station Bhadaur, District Barnala, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion was issued on 26.10.2010 and vide order dated 11.3.2011 parties were also directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of the statements with regard to compromise. The trial Court was also directed to send a report after recording the statements of the parties and to verify whether the said compromise is genuine and is not the result of any pressure or coercion from either of the parties.
A report in this regard has been sent by the Illaqa Magistrate, which is also on record, wherein, it has been mentioned that statements of
(2)
Crl. Misc. No. M-31402 of 2010
the parties were recorded and the complainant has specifically stated before the trial Court that the compromise was not the result of any threat, pressure, greed or any kind of undue influence. He has also stated in his statement that he has no objection in quashing of the FIR.
Learned State counsel has also affirmed the factum of compromise between the parties. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Jarnail Singh also submits that no other case except the present case is pending against the parties.
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 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.
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
(3)
Crl. Misc. No. M-31402 of 2010
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.
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:-
“ 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”.
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.
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
(4)
Crl. Misc. No. M-31402 of 2010
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.
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.
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 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 everlasting 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.
Compromise in modern society is the sine qua non of harmony
(5)
Crl. Misc. No. M-31402 of 2010
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).
For the reasons recorded above and having regard to the principles laid sown 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. 115 dated 13.10.2010 registered under Section 307,506,148,149 IPC and 25 and 27 of Arms Act at Police Station Bhadaur, District Barnala as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners, namely, Joan Singh, Balbir Kaur, Dalbara Singh, Nirbhai Singh, Lakhvir Singh and Gurwinder Singh are quashed.
May 26, 2011 pooja
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No
Crl. Misc. No. M-31402 of 2010 (6)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on account of a compromise even for non-compoundable offences.
Whether the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of the court in matrimonial discord cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya SawhneyReferred¶24
(1980) 1 SCC 63 · Who else cites this
Kulwinder Singh v. State of PunjabFollowed¶27
2007(3) R.C.R. (Cri) 1052
Dharambir v. State of HaryanaFollowed¶28
2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426: 2005(2) Apex Criminal 424: 2005 (2) Law Herald 723 (P&H) (FB)
10 provisions across 3 enactments
Joan Singh & Ors.
State of Punjab
another
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
