Criminal Misc. No. M-35576 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-35576 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.01.2010 Gurpreet Singh son of Surinder Pal Singh r/o village Jhangrian, Police Station Kurali, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Punjab. 2. Mohinder Singh son of Harbans Singh Jat, r/o village Nanharian, P.S. Kurali, District SAS Nagar. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. P.S. Paul, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 - State. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No. 2. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner, for quashing FIR No. 11, dated 02.02.08, under Sections 306, and 309 IPC, P.S. Kurali, SAS Nagar, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2). 2. The Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted, that the parties have arrived at a compromise, which is Annexure P2. He has further submitted that, as per the compromise, now there remains, no Criminal Misc. No. M-35576 of 2009 2 dispute, between the parties. He has further submitted that, with a view to prevent the abuse of process of Court, and, in the interest of justice, the FIR, referred to above, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, be quashed. He also placed reliance on Kulwinder Singh V/s State of Punjab, 2007(3), Law Herald (Punjab & Haryana), 2225, a judgement delivered by a Full Bench of this Court. 3. On the other hand, the Counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2, has also submitted that the compromise (Annexure P2) has already been arrived at, between the parties, and, now no dispute, subsists between them. He has also submitted the affidavit (Annexure P3), in token of correctness of the compromise (Annexure P2). He has further submitted that, on the basis of the compromise, referred to above, the FIR and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, be quashed, so as to prevent the abuse of the process of Court; harassment to the parties; and create better relations between them. 4. The Counsel for the State, did not oppose the quashing of FIR and the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, on the basis of the said compromise. 5. In Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), while approving the minority view in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana 2005(2) Law Herald (P&H)(FB) 723, a Bench of five Hon'ble Judges, of this Court, concluded as under: “27. To conclude, it can safely be said that Criminal Misc. No. M-35576 of 2009 3 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 Vs. 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 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 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 matrters, commercial Criminal Misc. No. M-35576 of 2009 4 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 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 powers 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 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-35576 of 2009 5 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.” 6. Compromise, in the 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 the 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 the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Exercise of power, in a given situation, will depend on the facts of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation. The Court is also a vital, and an extra- ordinary effective 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 the society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). 7. Keeping in view the ratio of law, laid down, in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my considered opinion, once the Criminal Misc. No. M-35576 of 2009 6 matter has been compromised, by the parties, no useful purpose, shall be served, by proceeding with the prosecution, as that would amount to sheer wastage of the time of the Court; harassment to the parties; and abuse of the process of Court. Even otherwise, the compromise is neither abhorrent to lawful composition of the society, nor would it promote savagery. 8. In view of the above, the petition is accepted. Consequently, FIR No. 11, dated 02.02.08, under Sections 306, and 309 IPC, P.S. Kurali, SAS Nagar, and, all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. 9. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 20.01.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE