CRM No. M 13606 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 13606 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.03.2011 Baldev Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. John Kumar, Advocate for the complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing Criminal Complaint No. 2378/5A dated 10.09.1997 (P3) under section 182 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rajpura, District Patiala. Facts, in short, are that petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 approached CRM No. M 13606 of 2009 2 the Hon'ble High Court by way of Criminal Misc. No. 18814-M of 1996 for registration of criminal case against respondent No.3 u/s 3 (1) of the Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, with a further prayer that direction be issued for holding an enquiry by District and Sessions Judge and the matter be investigated by an independent agency like CBI and adequate compensation be paid to the petitioners. The aforesaid Criminal Misc. came up for final hearing on April 23, 1997. After hearing the counsels for the parties,the same was disposed of with a direction that enquiry would be conducted by the I.G. (Crime) Punjab. In case, the said Officer comes to the conclusion that prima facie case was made out against Smt. Harjinder Kaur, Headmistress, he would not hesitate in passing an order for the registration of a criminal case against the Headmistress. However, it was also mentioned that if the allegation leveled against Smt. Harjinder Kaur, Headmistress, are found to be false or baseless, the said officer would register a case against the petitioner U/s 182 IPC or under such section as may be applicable against the petitioners. In pursuance of the order dated 23.4.1997 (Annexure P-1) passed in Criminal Misc. No. 18814-M of 1996, the enquiry was conducted by Shri H.R.Chadha, DIG (Crime), Punjab. The petitioner as well as the Headmistress were summoned and the statement of other witnesses were also recorded by Shri H.R.Chadha, IPS. Ultimately, Shri H.R.Chadha, IPS DIG(Crime), Punjab came to the conclusion that the petitioner approached the Hon'ble High court on hear-say or for their personal ends. It was pointed out that the petitioners failed to produce any convincing evidence in support of their allegations. It was also recommended by the Inquiry Officer CRM No. M 13606 of 2009 3 that action u/s 182 IPC may be initiated against the petitioners and others who collaborated with the petitioners in framing frivolous charges against Smt. Harjinder Kaur, Headmistress. In pursuance of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the SHO, P.S. Rajpura submitted Calandra U/s 182 IPC P.S. Rajpura. Moreover, a complaint filed by the State under Section 182 IPC titled as State v. Baldev Singh and others is pending in the Court of JMIC, Rajpura. While praying for quashing of the said complaint, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the matter has been compromised and, as such, allowing the proceedings to continue under section 182 IPC will not serve any purpose. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, however, submitted that respondent No. 3 has nothing to do with the proceedings under section 182 IPC as the same have been initiated by the State on the directions of this Court. As such, respondent No. 3 is not in a position to make any statement. Learned State counsel has filed their reply. It is contended that the said Calandra under section 182 IPC was registered in pursuance to the order dated 23.04.1997 passed by this Court in CRM M 18814 of 1996. Heard. No doubt, this Court vide order dated 23.04.1997 passed in CRM M 18814 of 1996 had directed that in case, the allegations leveled by the petitioners against respondent No. 3 were found to be false, proceedings under Section 182 IPC be initiated against the petitioners. However, much water has flown since then. CRM No. M 13606 of 2009 4 Admittedly, the matter has been compromised between the parties. Smt. Harjinder Kaur, Headmistress filed a suit for compensation/damages against the petitioner Baldev Singh etc. for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- for defaming her and for harming her reputation in the estimation of her colleagues, relatives and public in general by leveling false imputations/making/publishing false imputations concerning the plaintiff intending to harm, knowing or having reason to believe that such imputations would harm the reputation of the plaintiff. In the said suit notice was issued to the petitioners/defendants. Subsequently Smt. Harjinder Kaur and Baldev Singh etc. executed compromise on 19.12.2008. They agreed not to pursue the matter any further. A statement was given by Smt. Harjinder Kaur that she has compromised with the defendants and she was no longer interested to pursue the matter. A request was made that the suit be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the compromise. The aforesaid suit was taken up in the Mega Lok Adalat on 20.12.2008. Statement of the plaintiff was recorded. In view of the statement of the plaintiff, the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn. It was stated in the said order that the party to the compromise would be bound by the said compromise. Smt. Nachhitar Kaur, Smt. Raj Kaur, Sh. Hari Lal and Smt. Darshan Kaur also filed a complaint against Smt. Harjinder Kaur, Headmistress u/s 3 (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the parties to the said complaint compromised on 19.12.2008, stating therein, that they were no longer interested to pursue the matter. Compromise was signed by the complainant as well as respondent Smt. Harjinder Kaur on 19.2.2008. The said complaint were taken up in the CRM No. M 13606 of 2009 5 Mega Lok Adalat on 20.12.2008. In view of the statement of the parties on the basis of the compromise, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn by the Presiding officer, Mega Lok Adalat, Rajpura. Copy of the order has been placed on record as Annexure P9. It is, therefore, evident from the above that cases filed against each other stand withdrawn by the respective parties. In fact, the respondent/complainant filed an affidavit in Criminal complaint No. 62/10.12.1997 under Section 499, 500, 501, 502 IPC. The said affidavit reads as under:- “I, Harjinder Kaur wife of Shri Harjit Singh am resident of House No. 27, Kasturba Seva Mandir Road, Near CPM Office, Rajpura Town, District Patiala and state on oath as under:- 1. That a criminal complaint under section 182 IPC i.e. State v. Baldev Singh is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (C-Court) Rajpura. I am a witness in the said case. 2. That whenever I am summoned by the Hon'ble Court in connection with the said case, I will give my statement regarding the compromise having been reached between the parties. It is because of the reason that I have already compromise with the opposite parties in other cases also.” In view of the above, the order dated 23.04.1997 passed by the High Court in CRM M 18814 of 1996 does not stand in the way as another CRM M 21363 of 1997 was filed by the petitioners for issuance of direction for registration of the case against respondent No. 3 (Harjinder Kaur) under CRM No. M 13606 of 2009 6 Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act and also for quashing of the complaint under section 182 IPC. The aforesaid CRM M 21363 of 1997 was disposed of vide order dated 14.07.1999 by observing that the enquiry had already been conducted by the IGP (Crime) in pursuance of the order dated 23.04.1997 passed by this Court in CRM M 18814 of 1996, thus, there was no use of issuing further direction in the matter and liberty was granted to the petitioners that if they still feel that an offence under the Act has been made out, it was always open to them to file a private complaint before the Special Judge, who is competent to try the offence under the said Act. The petitioners in pursuance to the said observations, filed a criminal complaint before the JMIC, Rajpura under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. The matter was compromised during the pendency of the said complaint. As such, the fact as to whether the allegations of the petitioners were correct or not were sub judice before the concerned Court and therefore, the finding of the IG (Crime), at no stage, can be considered as final. Accordingly, the proceedings under section 182 IPC cannot proceed till as such time, the complaint under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act is finally decided as the subject matter of the allegations dealt with by the IG (Crime) in pursuance to the order dated 23.04.1997 passed by this Court in CRM M 18814 of 1996 and the subject matter of the complaint initiated by the petitioners are the same. In case, the complaint was decided in favour of the petitioner or the respondent is held guilty in the said complain, the proceedings initiated in pursuance to the Calandra under section 182 IPC would be rendered infructuous. Whereas, before the complaint under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ ST Act could be finalized or could be adjudicated upon, the matter has CRM No. M 13606 of 2009 7 been compromised. In pursuance to the said compromise, complaint under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act has been withdrawn and the respondent/complaint has given her affidavit, stating therein, that whenever she is being summoned by the Hon'ble Court in connection with the complaint titled as State v. Baldev Singh and others, she will give statement regarding the compromise having been reached between the parties and she is not interested to pursue the matter under section 182 IPC. Moreover, proceedings under section 182 IPC are being sought to be quashed on the basis of the compromise and the order dated 23.04.1997 passed by this Court in CRM M 18814 of 1996 would not stand in the way of the compromise. That could never be the spirit or intention of the Court. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:- “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 reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” CRM No. M 13606 of 2009 8 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Muni Swami, reported as AIR 1977 SC 1489, has held as under:- “In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to active a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. In a criminal case the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making there observations is that without a proper realization of the object purpose of the provision which to save the inherent powers of the High court to do justice between the State and its objects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.” In view of the law as laid down above as well as keeping in mind the totality of the circumstances as discussed above, the present petition is allowed and Criminal Complaint No. 2378/5A dated 10.09.1997 (P3) under section 182 IPC titled as State v. Baldev Singh and others, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rajpura, District CRM No. M 13606 of 2009 9 Patiala is quashed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 25.03.2011 mohan CRM No. M 13606 of 2009 10