In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 28865 of 2008 Date of Decision:February 06, 2009 Dhanpat Singh and others ---Petitioners versus Tulsi Dass ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.M.S.Chahal,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Yashwinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent. *** SABINA, J. Petitioner-Dhanpat Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the complaint dated 1.8.2002 titled “ Tulsi Dass vs. Dhanpat Singh and others” filed under Sections 323 /452/ 506 /342/ 364/365/356/357/ 120-B/382/387/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-1)and the summoning order dated 10.9.2003(Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with the intervention of the relatives and friends, parties have arrived at a compromise (Annexure P-3). On the basis of the said compromise, petition seeking quashing of the complaint by Radha Ram Jain -co accused was Crl. Misc. No. M- 28865 of 2008 -2- allowed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 54394-M of 2007 on 19.5.2008 and the following order was passed:- “The petitioner has sought quashing of criminal complaint filed by respondent bearing No. 88-C dated 1.8.2002/23.7.2003 titled Tulsi Dass Vs. Dhanpat etc. and also of the summoning order dated 10.9.2003 whereby the petitioner and others have been summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 452, 342, 364, 365, 382, 387, 148, 149 read with Section 120-B IPC, on the basis of compromise having entered between them. It has been alleged that the petitioner and complainant-respondent has entered into a compromise with the intervention of respectables and the complainant has decided not to pursue the impugned complaint against the petitioner. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, the factum of compromise has been reiterated and it has been mentioned that the respondent has no objection if the impugned complaint against the petitioner is quashed. By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be Crl. Misc. No. M- 28865 of 2008 -3- administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980 (1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in following words:- “The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvider Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007 (3) (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., even in non compoundable offene(s) has held as under:- “28. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 28865 of 2008 -4- 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. 29.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 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.” In the instant case, as emerges from record, the complainant and the petitioner have mutually settled their dispute and have purchase peace for each other. Moreover, the complainant, the star witness of the prosecution has since decided to withdraw from the prosecution to the extent of petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution against the petitioner is nothing but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court. Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having arrived at between the parties, it is a fit case where interference of this Crl. Misc. No. M- 28865 of 2008 -5- court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned complaint and all other consequent proceedings thereto, so far as petitioner is concerned, are quashed.” Respondent is present in person along with his counsel and has admitted the contents of the affidavit dated 27.10.2007 (Annexure P-3) (original placed on record). Keeping in view the fact that the complaint qua the co-accused, Radha Ram Jain has been quashed vide order reproduced above, this petition is allowed. The complaint dated 1.8.2002 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 10.9.2003(Annexure P-2) and further proceedings in consequent thereto qua the petitioners are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 06, 2009 PARAMJIT