IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 1398 of 2010 Balbir Kaur and another v. State of Punjab AND Crl.Misc.No.M-11045 of 2010 Surinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab and another Date of decision: 28.1.2011 CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.M-1398 of 2010 Mr.D.R.Punia, Advocate, for petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-11045 of 2010 Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. **** ORDER This judgment shall dispose of Crl.Misc. No. M-1398 of 2010 and Crl.Misc.No.M-11045 of 2010 as these have arisen out of the same FIR. The aforesaid petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of petitioners Balbir Kaur, Jaskaran Singh and Surinder Kaur for quashing of FIR No.216 dated 2.11.2001 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC (Sections 376/511IPC have been deleted); registered at Police Station, Phillaur and all subsequent proceeding arising therefrom. The facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No. M-1398 of 2010. Notice of motion was issued on 17th February, 2010. Reply on behalf of the State has been filed which is on record. Crl.Misc. No. M- 1398 of 2010 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is married sister-in-law of complainant Kulwinder Kaur and petitioner No.2 is son of petitioner No.1 who have falsely been implicated in the case whereas they have no role and are not concerned with the alleged offence as mentioned in the FIR. Earlier FIR No. 90 dated 29.4.2001 was registered under Sections 406/498- A IPC at Police Station Banga, District Nawanshar against Shingara Singh, Sarup Singh, Jaskaran Singh (petitioner No.2) Balbir Kaur (petitioner No.1) and Swaran Kaur and Madan Lal, who was mediator for the marriage, was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Two of the accused died during pendency of trial and the remaining accused were acquitted of the charges on the ground that offence under Sections 406/498-A IPC were committed in the jurisdiction of Nawanshahr. Subsequently, FIR No.216 dated 2.11.2001 was registered at Police Station Phillaur under Sections 376/511/420/465/468/471 IPC. against Kulwinder Kaur (complainant), Surinder Kaur (mother of the complainant), Swaran Kaur (since deceased), Jaskaran Singh (nephew of the husband of the complainant), Balbir Kaur alias Beero (sister in-law of complainant), Tarsem Singh besides Sarup Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Advocate, Dinesh Kansal, Advocate and Chanan Singh, Lambardar. Complainant Kulwinder Kaur was engaged with Tarsem Singh on 27th February, 2000 and marriage took place on 12th March, 2000 but it was registered by mentioning the name of Sarup Singh instead of Tarsem Singh as her husband and the complainant were Crl.Misc. No. M- 1398 of 2010 [3] cheated by the accused on the basis of false and fabricated certificate. During investigation conducted by the police, Sarup Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Dinesh Kansal and Chanan Singh Lamberdar were found innocent and they were placed in column No.2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequently the matter has been compromised between the parties and Surinder Kaur (mother of the complainant) signed the compromise deed on the basis of General Power of Attorney issued by the complainant in her favour. It has been mentioned in the compromise that Kulwinder Kaur as well as Tarsem Singh have solemnized their marriage and both of them are leading their respective married life. Both of them have no grievance against each other. The compromise effected between the parties is annexed as Annexure P-6 with the petition. Learned counsel for the complainant has also affirmed the factum of compromise between the parties. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file. In this case initially FIR No. 90 dated 29.4.2001 was registered at Police Station, Banga against Swaran Kaur, Balbir Kaur, Sarup Singh and Jaskaran Singh on the allegations that Kulwinder Kaur was engaged with Tarsem Singh on 27th February, 2000 at the house of Madan Lal Mediator and marriage was Crl.Misc. No. M- 1398 of 2010 [4] solemnized on 12th March, 2000. The allegations were that the in- laws and other accused demanded dowry through mediator and amount in cash was paid by the mother of the complainant on various occasions. This was also the allegation in the complaint that the marriage was solemnized with Tarsem Singh but at the time of registration of marriage, the name of Sarup Singh was replaced by Tarsem Singh. The offence under Sections 376/511 IPC was deleted in the case before putting the challan in the Court. Thereafter FIR No. 216 was registered on 2.11.2001 at Police station Phillaur under Sections 420/465/468/471 IPC and the allegations in the FIR were that the complainant was engaged with Tarsem Singh and married was registered by mentioning the name of Sarup Singh instead of Tarsem Singh and all accused including the present petitioners cheated the complainant on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. During investigation, Sarup Singh, Jaspal Singh Advocate, Dinesh Kansal Advocate and Chanan Singh, Lamberdar were found innocent and their names were mentioned in column No.2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. As far as allegation regarding forgery is concerned, the documents for registration of mariage were prepared in presence of witnesses who were kept in column No.2 and they were declared innocent during investigation by the police. The petitioners were never party in the registration of the marriage as neither they were witnesses nor were connected with the registration of the marriage in any manner. Subsequently, a compromise deed was effected between the parties Crl.Misc. No. M- 1398 of 2010 [5] on 22nd December, 2008 between mother of the complainant and Sarup Singh. Another compromise deed was prepared between mother of complainant (who is General Power of Attorney of the complainant) and the present petitioners on 19th January, 2010 wherein it has been mentioned that the complainant has got divorced from Tarsem Singh and they have got re-married and leading their happy married life and both of them have no grievance against each other and they are happy at their respective places. Since the matter has been compromised between the parties and both complainant as well as her husband Tarsem Singh (main accused) have re-married and settled in Canada, the continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility and it shall be merely a formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court as complainant would not support the case of prosecution in view of compromise between the parties. It would be in the interest of the parties as well as in the large interest of the society and to maintain peace and harmony and in order to save both the families from avoidable litigation that the compromise arrived at between them is accepted by this Court. It has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney (1980)1 SCC 63 that “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 Crl.Misc. No. M- 1398 of 2010 [6] 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. Relying on the views adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) R.C.R. (Cri) 1052 that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C., offence non-compoundable but parties entering into compromise, High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. While 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 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426: 2005(2) Apex Criminal 424: 2005 (2) Law Herald 723 (P&H) (FB), opined as under:- “ 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 Crl.Misc. No. M- 1398 of 2010 [7] itself, i.e, “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “ to secure the ends of justice”. No embargo, be in the shape of section 320 (9) Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 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 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 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. 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 Crl.Misc. No. M- 1398 of 2010 [8] Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. The power under Section 482 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 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 Crl.Misc. No. M- 1398 of 2010 [9] 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). For the reasons recorded above and having regard to the principles laid down by the Five -Judges Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), the petitions are allowed and FIR No.216 dated 2.11.2001 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC (Sections 376/511IPC have been deleted) registered at Police Station, Phillaur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE January 28, 2011 raghav