Criminal Revision No.163 of 2004 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 163 of 2004 Date of Decision : 27.04.2010 1. Vis Ram s/o Lal Singh, 2. Duli Ram s/o Devi Ram, 3. Bhim s/o Vis Ram, 4. Jagdish s/o Duli Ram 5. Singh Ram s/o Duli Ram and 6. Balbir @ Balli son of Bis Ram, All rs/o Assota District Faridabad. .... Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? Present: Mr. R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State. SHAM SUNDER, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.01.2004, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Criminal Revision No.163 of 2004 --2-- Faridabad, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 01.04.2002 and the order of sentence dated 03.04.2002, rendered by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, convicting the accused for the offences, punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and awarding sentence to them, for various terms of imprisonment. 2. During the pendency of revision-petition, the parties have entered into a compromise. Om Parkash, injured submitted his affidavit P-1, to the effect, that he alongwith the complainant and other injured settled his dispute peacefully, with the accused (petitioners) after burying their hatchet, as both the parties belong to one family. Bhim, one of the revision-petitioners also submitted his affidavit A-1 to the effect that parties have settled their disputes with the complainant and the injured. Thus, an application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for placing on record, the affidavit, and acquitting the accused, was filed. In other words, vide application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, as also the judgments of the Courts below. 3 I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 4. The first question, that arises for consideration is, as to whether, the FIR, as also the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, and the judgment of the Appellate Court, in appeal, affirming the judgment of the trial Court, could be quashed, in exercise of the power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, or not. It was Criminal Revision No.163 of 2004 --3-- held in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 676, by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, that the power to compound, can be exercised, at the trial, appellate or revisional stage. Similar principle of law was, laid down, in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) Law Herald 2225, by a Full Bench of this Court. Under these circumstances, relying upon the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, it is held that the FIR including the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the appellate Court can be quashed at the revisional stage, if the facts and circumstances, of a particular case, so warrant. 5. In Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), while approving the minority view in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana 2005(2) Law Herald (P&H)(FB) 723, a Bench of five Hon'ble Judges, of this Court, concluded as under : “27. 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, 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”. 28. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others (1980) 1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :- Criminal Revision No.163 of 2004 --4-- “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. 29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 30. 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 482 of the 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 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of 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 Criminal Revision No.163 of 2004 --5-- 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 a litigation. 31. 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 powers 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 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. 32. The power under Section 482 of the 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 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 482 of the 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 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 Criminal Revision No.163 of 2004 --6-- compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.” 6. Compromise in the modern society is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J., the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously, when the 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 the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Exercise of power, in a given situation, will depend on the facts of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation. The Court is also a vital, and an extra- ordinary effective 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 the society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). 7. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it may be stated here that the parties to the lis have buried their hatchet, though at a belated stage. If the compromise is accepted, and the proceedings are quashed, it Criminal Revision No.163 of 2004 --7-- will go a long way, to create better relations, between them, and remove bitterness, which perpetuated for a long time. Thus, it is a fit case, warranting the exercise of power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the FIR, conviction, and sentence, recorded by the Courts below. 8. Keeping in view the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, and applying the same, to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my considered opinion, once the matter has been compromised, by the parties, no useful purpose, shall be served by proceeding with the revision petition, on merits, as that would amount to sheer wastage of time of the Court; harassment to the parties; and abuse of the process of Court. Even otherwise, the compromise is neither abhorrent to lawful composition of the society, nor would it promote savagery. 9. In view of the above discussion, the petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is accepted. Consequently, the FIR, as also the judgment of conviction dated 01.04.2002, and the order of sentence, dated 03.04.2002, rendered by the trial Court, and the judgment dated 13.01.2004, affirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, by the Appellate Court, are set aside/quashed, resulting into the acceptance of revision- petition, and leading to the acquittal of the petitioners. April 27,2010 (SHAM SUNDER) dinesh JUDGE