Quashed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Mar 2011CRM-M/617/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking quashing of an FIR based on a voluntary compromise, the High Court accepted the report confirming amicable settlement and held that continuing proceedings would be futile, thus quashing the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 101 dated 08.03.2003 and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Devinder Pal Mehta and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-617 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-617 of 2011 Date of Decision : 08.03.2011

¶5

Devinder Pal Mehta & Others

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab & another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶11

Present: Mr S.S.Tiwana Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl.Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.Abhinav Oberoi, Advocate for complainant.

¶12

¶13

Daya Chaudhary, J.(Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of Devinder Pal Mehta, Paramjit Singh, Inderjit Singh and Daljit Singh for quashing of FIR No.101 dated 08.03.2003 under Sections 420/465/468/471/120-B of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Mohali District Mohali on the basis of compromise annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition.

¶15

Notice of motion was issued to the respondents on 10.01.2011. While issuing notice of motion, parties were also directed to appear before trial court and trial court was directed to send a report with regard to the validity or otherwise of the compromise, after recording the statements of the parties.

¶16

In compliance of the order dated 10.01.2011, a report has been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohali wherein, it has 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. Complainant has also mentioned that he has no objection in quashing of the said FIR. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohali, has also mentioned in his report that the parties had entered into

¶17

Criminal Misc. No.M-617 of 2011 2

¶18

compromise voluntarily without any pressure. The separate statements of all the accused as well as the complainant are on record.

¶19

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.

¶20

The factum of compromise has also been affirmed by learned counsel for the complainant.

¶21

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Karam Chand, has also brought to this Court that no case is pending against either of the parties and the compromise between the parties is genuine.

¶22

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 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.

¶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

¶24

Criminal Misc. No.M-617 of 2011 3

¶25

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.

¶26

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:-

¶27

“ 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”.

¶28

No embargo, be in the shape of section 320 (9) Cr.P.C. or

¶29

any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶30

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

¶31

Criminal Misc. No.M-617 of 2011 4

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

¶36

Criminal Misc. No.M-617 of 2011

¶37

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.

¶38

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, 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).

¶39

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.101 dated 08.03.2003 as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶40

08^th March,2011. Seema-II

¶41

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) Judge

¶42

Criminal Misc. No.M-617 of 2011 6

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devinder Pal Mehta 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

Vikram Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

S.B. Dangayach Vs State of Punjab

Balbir Singh Nadha Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jagjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Dalbar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.