IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Crl. Misc. No. M-13550 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:28.02.2011 Jatinder Kaur and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral) Crl. Misc. No.10239 of 2011 This is an application for placing on record affidavit of respondent No.2 and judgment of this Court dated 11.11.2010 as Annexures P-3 and P-4. Application is allowed and Annexures P-3 and P-4 are taken on record. Crl. Misc. No. M-13550-2009 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioners, namely, Jatinder Kaur, Hardip Kaur and Sukhjit Singh for quashing of FIR No.10 dated 19.1.2009 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib. Petitioner No.1- Inderjit Kaur has died during the pendency of this petition and her name was deleted from the array of parties. Notice of motion was issued on 18.5.2009. Crl. Misc. No. M-13550 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially petition was filed for quashing of FIR and subsequently a compromise was effected between the parties at the time of hearing of R.S.A. No.858 of 2009. A demand draft bearing No.609446 dated 4.1.2011 amounting to Rs.3 lacs was handed over to the complainant on 8.2.2011. Learned counsel for the complainant has also not controverted the factum of compromise. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and Annexures P-3 and P-4 filed with the application, the matter has been compromised between the parties. The relevant part of order passed in R.S.A. No.858 of 2009 with regard to compromise effected between the parties is reproduced as under:- “Stated that we have effected compromise in instant RSA No.858 of 2009 as well as in connected RSA No.1227 of 2009 arising out of the same suit. According to compromise, in addition to the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- already paid by the appellant pursuant to interim order dated 16.11.2009 of this Court, the appellant- Purshinder Singh shall pay further amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to plaintiff- respondent No.1 on or before 11.02.2011 and thereupon claim of plaintiff- respondent No.1 shall stand satisfied in toto. However, in the event of failure of the appellant to pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, instant RSA No.858 of 2009 shall stand dismissed and connected RSA No.1227 of 2009 shall stand allowed and judgment and decree of the trial Court shall stand restored. Crl. Misc. No. M-13550 of 2009 (O&M) -3- In view of compromise, FIR lodged by respondent No.1 against appellant and others also stands compromised and complainant- respondent No.1 shall cooperate with the accused of the said FIR in getting the same quashed in view of compromise between the parties. Respondent No.1 shall furnish necessary affidavit and shall make necessary statement whatever required for quashing of the said FIR. Both the appeals be decided accordingly. Thus both the appeals have been compromised lawfully. Accordingly both the appeals i.e. RSA No.858 of 2009 and RSA No.1227 of 2009 are disposed of in terms of the above statement which shall form part of the decree-sheet.” Since the matter has been compromised between the parties and 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 large interest of the society, peace and harmony and in order to save both the families from avoidable litigation that 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)1 SCC 63 that “the finest Hour of Justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling Crl. Misc. No. M-13550 of 2009 (O&M) -4- 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, 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-13550 of 2009 (O&M) -5- 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 438 Cr.P.C. 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 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 course of a 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 ofd 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 to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercise Ex- Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither Crl. Misc. No. M-13550 of 2009 (O&M) -6- 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 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 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. Compromise in 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 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 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 on facts of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a list 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-13550 of 2009 (O&M) -7- 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 sown by the Five -Judges Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.10 dated 19.1.2009 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. February 28, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE