Allowed

Raj Sandhu @ Rajpal Kaur Sandhu and Ors. v. Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 May 2011CRM-M/6099/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instituted for cheating and forgery. The court accepted a genuine compromise between the parties and held that inherent powers extend to non-compoundable offences to secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 242 dated 12.10.2009 and all subsequent proceedings qua petitioners were quashed.

Raj Sandhu @ Rajpal Kaur Sandhu and Ors… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-6099 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-6099 of 2010

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 24.05.2011

¶6

Raj Sandhu @ Rajpal Kaur Sandhu & Ors.

¶7

..........Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

U.T., Chandigarh and others

¶10

..........Respondents

¶11

BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶12

Present:Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. SS Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate for U.T., Chandigarh.

¶14

Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶15

¶16

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

¶17

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Raj Sandhu @ Rajpal Kaur Sandhu, Rajdeep Singh Sandhu, Manpreet Singh Sandhu and Brig. K.S. Kahlon for quashing of FIR No. 242 dated 12.10.2009 registered under Section 420,465,467,468,120-B IPC at Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-9).

¶18

Copy of the Addendum has been filed in the Court today and the same is taken on record.

¶19

Notice of motion was issued on 3.3.2010 and vide order dated 5.5.2011, parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate for

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M-6099 of 2010 (2)

¶21

recording of the statements with regard to compromise. The Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send a report after recording the statements of the parties and to verify as to said compromise is genuine and is not the result of any pressure or coercion from either of the parties.

¶22

A report in this regard along with the statements of the parties has been sent by the Illaqa Magistrate, which is also on record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of order passed by this Court on 5.5.2011, statements of 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. The complainant has also stated in his statement that he has no objection in quashing of the FIR.

¶24

Learned counsel for the partie also submits that complaint case as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom have also been quashed today by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-13179 of 2011.

¶25

Learned State counsel has also affirmed the factum of compromise between the parties.

¶26

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.

¶27

It has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney (1980)1 SCC 63 that

¶28

(3)

¶29

Crl. Misc. No. M-6099 of 2010

¶30

“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. (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.

¶31

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:-

¶32

“ 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”.

¶33

(4)

¶34

Crl. Misc. No. M-6099 of 2010

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

Crl. Misc. No. M-6099 of 2010 (5) 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.

¶40

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).

¶41

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. 242 dated 12.10.2009 registered under Section 420,465,467,468,120-B IPC at Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh as well as all subsequent proceedings arising

¶42

(6)

¶43

Crl. Misc. No. M-6099 of 2010

¶44

therefrom qua petitioners, namely, Raj Sandhu @ Rajpal Kaur Sandhu, Rajdeep Singh Sandhu, Manpreet Singh Sandhu and Brig. K.S. Kahlon are quashed.

¶45

May 24, 2011 pooja

¶46

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶47

Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No

Raj Sandhu @ Rajpal Kaur Sandhu and Ors. v. Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Sandhu @ Rajpal Kaur Sandhu and Ors. v. Ut of Chandigarh 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

Sudesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sudesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Aarti & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Preety and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurshabad Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kamalpreet Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.