Crl. Misc. No. M-46353 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Crl. Misc. No. M-46353 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.02.2011 Sohan Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioners, namely, Sohan Singh, Parkash Kaur, Harjinder Singh @ Binder Singh and Rani @ Manjit Kaur for quashing of FIR No.130 dated 9.6.2006 registered under Sections 406, 498-A and 323 IPC at Police Station Basti Jodhewal, District Ludhiana and the summoning order dated 12.7.2007 vide which the petitioners have been ordered to be summoned by the trial Court. While issuing notice of motion on 20.9.2007, the following order was passed:- “It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Parminder Kaur wife of Harbans Singh filed a complaint (Annexure P-1) before Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime, Ludhiana on February 28, 2006. In the said complaint, no allegations were levelled by the complainant against the Crl. Misc. No. M-46353 of 2007 (O&M) -2- petitioners. On the basis of said complaint, Harbans Singh was challaned in the aforesaid FIR. Parminder Kaur appeared as PW-2 before the trial Court and named the petitioners that they had also given beating to her. On the basis of said statement of Parminder Kaur, by impugned order dated July 12, 2007 the petitioners have been summoned to face trial along with Harbans Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners could not have been summoned on the basis of statement made by Parminder Kaur before the trial Court because earlier to that, Police investigated the matter and found the petitioners innocent and there should have been some supporting evidence against the petitioners. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on `Hukam Chand & another Vs. State of Haryana & another' 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 141.' Notice of motion for 18.12.2007. In the meantime, implementation of the order dated July 12, 2007 (Annexure P-12) is stayed.” During the pendency of the petitioner, the matter was sent to Permanent Lok Adalat to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties and the parties were directed to be present before Permanent Lok Adalat on 13.1.2010. The case came up for hearing before Permanent Lok Adalat on 3.2.2010 and the following order was passed:- “Statements of the parties have been recorded. Adjourned to 09.03.2010 to enable Harbans Singh (previous husband) to bring a Bank Draft for a sum of Rs.45,000/- Crl. Misc. No. M-46353 of 2007 (O&M) -3- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Only) in the name of Parminder Kaur. Copy of statements and order be given to the parties.” Vide order dated 3.2.2010, statement of complainant Parminder Kaur was recorded wherein she has stated that she would accept an amount of Rs.45,000/- from her husband Harbans Singh and she would not claim anything towards dowry articles and she would withdraw all the complaint filed against him or his relatives. She has also stated in her statement that she had no objection in quashing of the FIR No.130 dated 9.6.2006 under Sections 406/498-A/323 IPC and private complaint pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. In compliance of the settlement arrived at between the parties, petitioner Harbans Singh handed over a Draft No.062466 dated 4.3.2010 to the tune of Rs.45,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Hoshiarpur to the complainant on 9.3.2010. Order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat on 9.3.2010 is reproduced as under:- “On the last date of hearing i.e. on 3.2.2010, statements of the parties were recorded i.e. husband and wife. In response to the same, today, husband has made the statement handing over draft bearing No.062466 dated 04.03.2010, drawn on Corporation Bank, Hoshiarpur (593), for Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Only) to the wife which has been accepted by the wife. This will be full and final settlement of the claim and she will have no objection for quashing of FIR No.130 dated 09.06.2006, under Sections 406/498-A/323 IPC, P.S. Basti Jodhewal, District Ludhiana and private complaint titled `Parminder Kaur Versus Harbans Singh and others', under Crl. Misc. No. M-46353 of 2007 (O&M) -4- Sections 406/498-A/323/324 IPC, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana and the husband will withdraw complaint No.185 dated 16.10.2006, titled `Harbans Singh Vs. Parminder Kaur, under Sections 148/323/324 / 326/149 IPC, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. Hence, file is returned to the Hon'ble High Court for appropriate orders. Copy of statements and order be given to the parties.” In view of the settlement arrived at 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-46353 of 2007 (O&M) -5- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-46353 of 2007 (O&M) -6- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-46353 of 2007 (O&M) -7- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-46353 of 2007 (O&M) -8- 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.130 dated 9.6.2006 registered under Sections 406, 498-A and 323 IPC at Police Station Basti Jodhewal, District Ludhiana and the summoning order dated 12.7.2007 as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. February 25, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE