Criminal Misc. No. M-8812 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-8812 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:30.04.2008 Rattan Singh Thandi and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RAJESH BINDAL J. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.9 dated 11.01.2002 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Jagraon and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law (brother of husband of daughter of the complainant). Though various grounds are raised in the petition for quashing of the FIR, a detailed reference thereto is not required for the reason that during the pendency of the present petition and a petition for bail filed by petitioners No.1 and 2 bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-5088 of 2008, a settlement was arrived at between the parties. While considering the bail application of petitioners No.1 and 2 in Criminal Misc. No. M-5088 of 2008, this Court on 1.4.2008 passed the following order:- “On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the complainant namely Nirmal Kaur w/o Sh. Rajvinder Singh Grewal, r/o Kila Raipur, Tehsil & District Ludhiana, is impleaded as respondent no.2 in the petition. Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant- respondent no.2. Criminal Misc. No. M-8812 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the parties on instructions from the petitioners, namely, Rattan Singh Thandi and Harbans Kaur Thandi and the complainant- Nirmal Kaur, who are present in Court in person, submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled on payment of Rs. 6.50 lacs by the petitioners to the complainant- respondent no.2. The amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- already deposited by the petitioners with the Registrar of this Court shall be paid to the complainant and another sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs shall be paid to her on the next date when the FIR in question is quashed on the basis of compromise. Adjourned to 09.04.2008 for further consideration.” As the complainant desired that the amount settled between the parties be paid to her daughter, who is still living in England and in dire need of the money, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs were returned back to the petitioners No.1 and 2 to enable them to pay the amount equivalent to Rs. 6,50,000/- to the daughter of the complainant in England converted into Pounds. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as agreed upon, a sum of Pounds 8194 have been deposited by petitioner No.1 in the account of daugther of the complainant/ respondent No.2, Narinder Kaur Thandi bearing No.74598165 maintained with Nation Wide Bank, High Street, West Bromwich, West midlands, U.K. The factum of deposit of amount is sought to be proved with production of copy of the account along with the application filed today. The submission is that once the amount settled between the parties has already been paid and further that daughter of the complainant/ respondent No.2 and petitioner No.3 have already separated by way of decree of divorce passed by the Court in England, the FIR in question and all subsequent proceedings thereto be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225. Criminal Misc. No. M-8812 of 2008 (O&M) -3- Learned counsel for respondent No.2/ complainant and the complainant who appears in person in the Court confirms the fact that the amount as stated by the petitioners has already been credited in the account of the daughter of the complainant. He also does not disputes the factum of divorce having been taken place between the daughter of the complainant and petitioner No.3. In this factual matrix, she submits that she has no objection in case the FIR in question against the petitioners is quashed. 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(2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723, opined 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 Versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-8812 of 2008 (O&M) -4- 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 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. 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 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. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-8812 of 2008 (O&M) -5- nor the defined para-meters 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 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 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 Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above Criminal Misc. No. M-8812 of 2008 (O&M) -6- and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that after the marriage, the parties lived together for a short duration. Thereafter, they separated by decree of divorce by a Court in England. Even the amount as settled between the parties as permanent alimony has also been paid by the petitioners to the daughter of the complainant in England. Once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, FIR No.9 dated 11.01.2002 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Jagraon and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. April 30, 2008 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) renu JUDGE