Criminal Misc. No. M-12493 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-12493 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.05.2012. [ENTITY] and another Petitioners Versus [ENTITY] and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. [ENTITY], AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1 - State. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for respondent No.2. [ENTITY], J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] on behalf of petitioners, namely, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], for quashing of [CASE NUMBER] dated 12.01.2009, under [SECTION] {u/[SECTION]} of [ACT] registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala on the basis of compromise effected between the parties, which is annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition.
Vide order dated 06.03.2012, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements with regard to the compromise. The trial Court was also directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner and also to intimate whether any case is pending against either of the parties or not. The trial Court was also directed to send a report along with statements of the parties.
In response to the said directions issued by this Court, a report in this regard has been sent by the trial Court, which is on record along with the statements of the parties. It has been mentioned in the report that the parties were identified by their counsel. It has been mentioned that the parties have settled their dispute by way of compromise and the compromise is without any threat, pressure or undue influence.
Complainant has specifically stated in his statement that he has compromised the dispute with the accused and has no objection in quashing of the FIR.
Learned counsel appearing for complainant-respondent No.2 has also affirmed the factum of compromise and submits that the complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR as well as other proceedings arising therefrom.
Since the matter has been compromised between 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 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 [PRECEDENT] 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 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 [PRECEDENT] v. [ENTITY] 2007(3) R.C.R. (Cri) 1052 that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under [SECTION] [ACT], offence non-compoundable but parties entering into compromise, High Court has the power under [SECTION] [ACT] 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 [ENTITY] 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], of the [ACT] 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] [ACT] or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under [SECTION] [ACT]
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 power under [SECTION] [ACT] 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] [ACT] 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 litigation.
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] [ACT], in order to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The power under [SECTION] [ACT] is to be exercised Ex-[ENTITY] 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] [ACT] 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 non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by [ENTITY] 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] [ACT] 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 the abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, notwithstanding bar under [SECTION] [ACT] 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 [ENTITY] case (supra).
For the reasons recorded above and having regard to the principles laid down by the Five-Judges Bench of this Court in [ENTITY] case (supra), this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of [CASE NUMBER] dated 12.01.2009, under [SECTION] {u/[SECTION]} of [ACT] registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners, namely, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], are hereby quashed.
02.05.2012 ([ENTITY]) neetu JUDGE