Judgment:
Kaur Gurpreet 2013.09.02 11:51 Criminal Misc.
not M-22999 o”
1. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.
not M-22999 of 2013 Date of decision:
30. 08.2013 Daljit Singh @ Happy and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents Criminal Misc.
not M-23000 of 2013 Manjit Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners in Criminal Misc.
not M-22999 of 2013.
for respondent No.2 in Criminal Misc.
not M-23000 of 2013.
Mr.Premjit S.
Hundal, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State.
Mr.G.S.Rawat, Advocate for the petitioners in Criminal Misc.
not M-23000 of 2013 for respondent No.2 in Criminal Misc.
not M-22999 of 2013.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
(Oral) This order shall dispose of both the petitions bearing Criminal Misc.
not M-22999 of 2013 and Criminal Misc.
not M-23000 of 2013 as the parties in both the cases are same.
Criminal Misc.
not M-22999 of 2013 has been filed on behalf of the petitioneRs.namely, Daljit Singh @ Happy, Jarnail Singh @ Jaila, Kaur Gurpreet 2013.09.02 11:51 Criminal Misc.
not M-22999 o”
2. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Harbhajan Singh and Harnarinderjit Singh for quashing of FIR No.89 dated 17.06.2009 registered under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Dakha, Ludhiana, whereas, Criminal Misc.
not M-23000 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioners namely Manjit Singh and Darshan Singh for quashing of cross case under Sections 354, 323, 294 read with Section 34 IPC in the above said FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
During pendency of the proceedings, a compromise was effected between the parties and not both the parties have no objection in quashing of FIR as well as cross version registered against each other.
Vide order dated 18.07.2013, both the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements with regard to compromise and the trial Court was directed to send a report in this regard along with statements of the parties.
In compliance of said directions, a report has been sent along with statements of the parties which are on record.
It has been stated in the report that the statements of the parties are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner and the compromise is valid.
It has also been mentioned therein that the accused Harnarinderjeet Singh has been declared as proclaimed offender by the trial Court and his anticipatory bail was dismissed on 24.04.2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and as such, the said accused was given an opportunity to surrender before the trial Court.
Accused Harnarinderjeet Singh was not present at the time of recording of his statement.
Complainant-Manjit Singh in FIR case has stated that with the intervention of the respectables, both the parties have compromised and has no objection in quashing of the FIR.
Kaur Gurpreet 2013.09.02 11:51 Criminal Misc.
not M-22999 o”
3. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Statement of Daljit Singh @ Happy has been recorded and the same has been signed by all the accused persons, wherein, the factum of compromise has been affirmed.
Similarly, in cross-version case, the statement of respondent No.2-complainant Manjit Kaur has been recorded, wherein, she has stated that she has no objection in quashing of cross version.
Parties whose statements were recorded before the trial Court have been identified by their counsel and the compromise was stated to be genuine without any pressure from either side.
In Kulwinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab and otheRs.reported as 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the Larger Bench of our own High Court has held that the High Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings eve in non-compoundable offences, notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to prevent abuse of the process any Court or to secure the ends of justice.
In Kulwinder Singh's case, the Larger Bench has also observed :- “The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua not 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.”
The Apex Court in the case of `Madan Mohan Abbot v.
State of Punjab', reported as 2008 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 429:2008 (2) R.A.J.529: (2008) 4 SCC 58.emphasized in para No.6 as follows:- “6.
We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that Kaur Gurpreet 2013.09.02 11:51 Criminal Misc.
not M-22999 o”
4. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.
This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi and others v.
State of Haryana and anr., reported as 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 888, in para 6 and 11, held as under:- “6.
In Pepsi Food LTD.& Anr.v.Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., 1997 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 761: (1998) 5 SCC 749.this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal's case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the courts.
Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
It is well settled that these powers have no limits.
Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution which invoking such poweRs.11.
In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & ORS.versus Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., 1988 (1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 565 : (1988) 1 SCC 692.it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.
Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.”
Since the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and both the parties have agreed not to pursue the case Kaur Gurpreet 2013.09.02 11:51 Criminal Misc.
not M-22999 o”
5. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh against each other and the complainants, in both the cases, have no objection in quashing of the FIR as well as cross version and moreover, the continuation of the proceedings would be a futile exercise as because of the compromise, the complainants are not going to depose against the accused and to support the case of the prosecution and also in view of judgment of Kulwinder Singh and others (supra).I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility.
The complainants do not want to pursue these proceedings and it shall merely be a formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court as the complainant would not support the case of prosecution in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Accordingly, both the petitions bearing Criminal Misc.
not M- 22999 of 2013 and Criminal Misc.
not M-23000 of 2013 are allowed and and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.89 dated 17.06.2009 registered under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Dakha, Ludhiana as well as cross case under Sections 354, 323, 294 read with Section 34 IPC in the above said FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners Daljit Singh @ Happy, Jarnail Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Manjit Singh and Darshan Singh are quashed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 30.08.2013 JUDGE gurpreet