[CASE NUMBER] # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. [CASE NUMBER] Date of Decision:-09.10.2015 [ENTITY] & Ors. Petitioners. Versus [ENTITY] & Ors. Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present:- Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms. [ENTITY], AAG Punjab. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. [ENTITY], J.(ORAL)
Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.105 dated 11.08.2014 for offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of [ACT] registered with Police Station Moga Sadar, District Moga and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 21.08.2015(Annexure P-2).
As per allegations in the FIR levelled by complainant [ENTITY] on 06.08.2014 all the petitioners armed with deadly weapons such as Rifle, Rod, Dang, Kirpan entered her house and on the lalkara being raised by petitioner no.4 [ENTITY] attacked the complainant and her husband and inflicted injuries on their person and also broken the teeth of the complainant, which led to the registration of the aforesaid FIR.
[CASE NUMBER] # 2# Upon notice of motion parties were given liberty to approach the learned Illaqa Magistrate by making appropriate application for getting their statements recorded in terms of the compromise and who shall submit its report regarding the genuineness of the compromise.
Report (Mark-A) in the shape of letter dated 22.09.2015 of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Moga duly forwarded by learned District & Sessions Judge, Moga vide endorsement dated 28.09.2015 has been received wherein it is stated that the parties appeared before that court and suffered statements recorded separately in terms of the compromise thereby stated that the matter between the parties has been compromised and complainant has no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed against the petitioners.
From the report submitted it is evident that the dispute between the petitioners-accused and the complainant has been amicably resolved by entering into compromise wherein the complainant has stated that she has no objection if the present FIR against the petitioners-accused is quashed.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from ASI [ENTITY] submits that out of 18 witnesses evidence of only two witnesses has been recorded and is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the statements recorded in terms of the aforesaid compromise whereby the complainant is not willing to support the case of the prosecution.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675 [ENTITY] & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and [SECTION] of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under [SECTION] of the [CASE NUMBER] # 3# Code.
A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. [ENTITY] and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has also held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under [SECTION] [ACT], may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:-
"The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the [ACT], which can affect the inherent power of this Court under [SECTION]. 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] of the [ACT], in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice."
Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in [PRECEDENT] while relying upon its decision in [ENTITY]'s case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise.
Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. [ENTITY] 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:-
"We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court [CASE NUMBER] # 4# 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 utilised 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." Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under [SECTION] [ACT], for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.105 dated 11.08.2014 for offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of [ACT] registered with Police Station Moga Sadar, District Moga and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
( [ENTITY] ) JUDGE October 09, 2015 Vinay