IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-39083 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.8.2015 [ENTITY] Petitioner. Versus [ENTITY] and another Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. [ENTITY], AAG, Punjab. Ms. [ENTITY], Advocate for respondent No.2.
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? [ENTITY] J.(ORAL):
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short '[ACT]') invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR No. 159 dated 12.6.2008 under Sections [SECTION] of the [ACT] ('[ACT]' for short), registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. It is pertinent to mention that the said compromise has been arrived at between the parties, during the pendency of this petition.
Notice of motion was issued.
In compliance of the order dated 7.7.2015 passed by this Court, the parties got their statements recorded before the learned trial court. Consequently, report dated 16.7.2015 sent by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, has been received which is available on record of the case alongwith the statements of the parties. Learned Magistrate has reported that the parties have made their statements voluntarily and without any pressure. The compromise arrived at between the parties has been found to be a genuine one.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have decided to bury the hatchet and are living peacefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that continuation of the impugned FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also fairly states that parties have entered into a compromise and she has got no objection if the impugned FIR with consequential proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State are ad idem that petitioner is not a proclaimed offender.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under [SECTION] [ACT], so as to secure theAMITends KUMAR justice. It is so said because the parties have arrived at an out of Court settlement by way of compromise (Annexure P-2). The compromise is without any pressure and a genuine one. In such a situation, continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law.
The abovesaid view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in [PRECEDENT] and also from the larger Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus [ENTITY] and another reported as 2007 (3) RCR (criminal) 1052. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 of the judgment in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:
"It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under [SECTION] [ACT] is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section
482 [ACT] That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution [ENTITY] [SECTION] [ACT] on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under [SECTION], the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-
compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under [SECTION] [ACT] are not for that purpose controlled by [SECTION] [ACT] Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under [SECTION] [ACT] by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under [SECTION] may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked."
The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) has been further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its later judgments including in the cases of [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and Narinder Singh and others v. [ENTITY] and another, 2014 (6) SCC
466. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, this Court has satisfied itself that the compromise arrived at between the parties is a genuine one. They have got their statements recorded before the learned trial court, without any pressure. In view of the genuine compromise arrived at between the parties and also in view of the [ENTITY] report received from the learned trial court, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the continuation of the prosecution any further would be nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law. It would result in wastage of valuable time of the Court because no chance of conviction is left.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 159 dated 12.6.2008 under Sections [SECTION] [ACT], registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed, however, qua the petitioner only.
Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made, instant petition stands allowed.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE 4.8.2015 AK Sharma