Judgment:
Criminal Misc.
not M-8549 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.
not M-8549 of 2011 Date of decision:
11. 12.2012 Mandeep Singh Dhillon and another ....Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.A.S.Kler, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of petitioneRs.namely, Mandeep Singh Dhillon and Gurpreet Kaur for quashing of F.I.R.No.535 dated 10.09.2005 under Sections 498-A/406/109 IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and the complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel also submits that the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has also been allowed vide Order dated 12.02.2011 and divorce has been granted on mutual consent.
The complainant-respondent No.2- Criminal Misc.
not M-8549 o”
2. Kirandeep Kaur is also present in the Court, who has affirmed the factum of compromise and divorce.
She has stated in the Court that the amount settled in the compromise has been received by her and that she has no objection in quashing of the FIR, in question, and other proceedings arising therefrom.
There is a matrimonial dispute between the parties and the complainant-respondent No.2 has specifically stated that the dispute between them has been settled and the amount has been received and that she has no objection in quashing of the FIR as well as other proceedings arising therefrom.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that the dispute between the parties has been settled and not 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 larger interest of the societal peace and harmony and in order to save both the families from avoidable litigation, 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).SCC 6.that “the finest Hour of Justice arrives propitiously when parties, Criminal Misc.
not M-8549 o”
3. 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.
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, Criminal Misc.
not M-8549 o”
4. 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 482 Cr.P.C.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, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the couRs.of 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 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 Criminal Misc.
not M-8549 o”
5. to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court.
There can neither be an exhaustive list not 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 utmost 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 make some 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 not 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 Criminal Misc.
not M-8549 o”
6. the 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 upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis 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 down by the Five-Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra).this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R.No.535 dated 10.09.2005 under Sections 498-A/406/109 IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioneRs.namely, Mandeep Singh Dhillon and Gurpreet Kaur.
Order dasti.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 11.12.2012 JUDGE gurpreet