1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 17564-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.10.2009 *** Labh Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. S.P.S. Tinna, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. Jasjit Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition quashing of FIR No. 113 dated 28.8.2008, under Sections 323, 324, 452, 148, 149 and 307 IPC, got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners at Police Station Khuwian Sarwar, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur and consequent proceedings thereto has been sought. The facts as culled out from the petition are that on 127.8.2008 petitioners assaulted the complainant-respondent No.2 to 4. On the statement made by respondent No.2, the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioners. It has been contended that the parties have settled the dispute amicably with the intervention of respectables and the complainant has decided not to pursue the case against the petitioners. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has also been filed along with the petition. Even in the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4, they have authenticated the compromise and asserted their no objection in quashing of the impugned FIR against the petitioners pursuant to the compromise entered between the 2 parties. However, learned State counsel has pointed out that against petitioners No. 2,3 and 5 proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. are going on. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the matter has been resolved amicably and a lenient view be taken towards them. 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 administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding 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 Kulvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (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 offence(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 3 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 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 parties, who are neighbourers, have mutually settled their dispute and have put to rest the litigation. Since the complainant has decided to withdraw from the prosecution, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution 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 Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Keeping in view the fact that petitioners No.2,3 and 5 have not submitted themselves before the authority of the Court, however, honouring the compromise entered between the parties and in the interest of justice, the petitioners are directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each and deposit the same with the District Legal Aid Fund of the concerned area within one month and to produce the receipt before the Registry of this Court. On their failure to do so, the Registry shall list the case for further proceeding in the 4 matter. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings thereto, qua the petitioners are quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 7, 2009 Jiten