IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 252 of 2010 Date of Decision 17th March, 2011 __________________________________________________________ Ashwani Kumar & others ….Pertitioners. Versus State of H.P. & others ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. For Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J(oral) This petition has been instituted by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the criminal proceedings in Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amb, District Una under Sections 452, 147, 1480, 149, 323 and 324 IPC. 2. The parties have appeared in Court today. The respondents are represented by Shri Vijay Verma, Advocate. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Statements of all three respondents have been recorded. The respondents admitted that they have been entered into the compromise with the petitioners, photocopy of which is Ext.C-1 on record. The parties to this case are related to each other and it is submitted by the respondents that the case was instituted on the fight which occurred in the heat of moment over some dispute of water. Now they have come to this Court in the spirit of forgiveness. 3. Three affidavits of petitioners Ext.C-2, Ext.C-3, Ext.C-4 have also been filed in support of the contention that the case may not be carried on any further. 4. Initially, this Court was reluctant to quash the criminal proceedings, considering the nature of allegations made. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2007-3) 147 P.L.R. 439 holding: “25. 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”. 26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. 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:- “The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the 3 hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” 27. 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. 28. 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. The compromise, in a modern society, it is 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. 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 4 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. 30. 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 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 a 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.” (at p. 450-451) 5. Considering the fact that the parties are related to each other and also that they have come to this Court in the spirit of forget and forgive, I find that it is a fit case in which I can exercise my powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This petition is accordingly allowed and further proceedings of the case No. 57/1 of 2010 titled as State vs. Ashwani Kumar and others 5 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amb, District Una are qushed. Petition stands disposed of. All miscellaneous petition(s), if any, also stand disposed of being infructuous. March 17th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 6