Criminal Misc. No. M-11114 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-11114 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.9.2009 Rajender and others ...Petitioners vs State of Haryana and another ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present Mr. SP Chahhar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashok K. Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent no. 1. None for respondent no. 2 despite service. Rajesh Bindal, J. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 159 dated 13.8.2004, registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The aforesaid FIR has been got registered on the statement of respondent no. 2- Smt. Sudesh daughter of Raghbir Singh against the petitioners for causing harassment and demand of dowry. Now the parties have compromised the matter and sought quashing of the FIR on that basis. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that with the intervention of respectable of both the parties the matter has been compromised. The petitioners have also placed on record compromise (Annexure P2) effected before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Samjhauta Sadan), Jhajjar, according to which respondent no. 2 will withdraw all the three cases (a) Sudesh vs Rajender u/s 125 Cr.P.C. (b) State vs Rajender and others u/s 498-A IPC and (c) Rajender vs Sudesh for taking guardianship. The petitioners have also placed on record order dated 22.11.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, in the maintenance petition titled as Sudesh and another vs Rajender Singh wherein also it was mentioned that both the parties have agreed to withdraw all the litigation pending between them. The appeal filed by respondent no. 2 in this court bearing FAO No. 65-M of 2008 titled as Sudesh vs Rajinder Singh and another was also withdrawn by respondent no.2 herein in terms of the aforesaid compromise vide order dated 29.1.2009 (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted respondent no. 2 has made statement before the court below that she will withdraw all the cases pending between the parties and now she is not Criminal Misc. No. M-11114 of 2009 (2) appearing before this court despite service. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that once all the disputes between the parties have been settled as per compromise, the FIR deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225. In this case notice of motion was issued to the respondents on 24.4.2009. Despite service, respondent no. 2 has not put in appearance. Keeping in view the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties and respondent no. 2 is not appearing despite service, the arguments addressed by learned counsels for the petitioners and as well as respondent no. 1 have been heard and with their assistance I have also gone through the paper-book. In the absence of any reply by the complainant, the allegations made by the petitioners are deemed to be admitted which otherwise are also supported by judicial record. As is evident from the document placed on record as Annexures P-2, it was agreed between the parties that all the litigation pending between the parties will be withdrawn by them. Respondent no. 2 herein had even withdrawn the appeal filed against her husband in this court vide order dated 29.1.2009 (Annexure P-4). 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-11114 of 2009 (3) 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 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-11114 of 2009 (4) 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 and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, FIR No. 159 dated 13.8.2004, registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 8.9.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge