Criminal Misc. No.M-31501 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.M.No.M-31501 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 19.7.2011 Pawan Kumar(allegedly called Poni) and others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Haryana and another RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Shekhar Mudgil, A.A.G. Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No.538 dated 28.10.2009 registered under Sections 376(g)/506/120B/216 I.P.C. at Police Station City, Bhiwani and the consequential proceedings. The prayer made herein is that the petitioners accused of having committed the offence under the aforesaid sections have compromised the matter with the prosecutrix. Thus they by placing reliance upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052 and a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and others v. State of Punjab 2011(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 127 pray for quashing of the F.I.R. Criminal Misc. No.M-31501 of 2010 -2- I have considered the submissions that have been made before this Court. In Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052 (supra), the Full Bench acknowledged the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be of wide amplitude and noticed with approval that the power of quashing can be exercised in all cases and cannot be confined to matrimonial disputes alone. In para-30 of the judgment, it was observed as follows :- “30. 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-metres 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 a vital and an extraordinary 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.” In the very same judgment, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Criminal Misc. No.M-31501 of 2010 -3- Court in Mrs.Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs.Kaushalya Sawhney and others (1980) 1 S.C.C.63 were also noticed and the same may be quoted here below :- “The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” The Full Bench, therefore, while examining the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has certainly observed that the power to quash the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings is of wide amplitude provided that noticing the facts before it, the exercise of such a power ostensibly thwarts the abuse of the process of law and achieves the intended purpose of securing the ends of justice but at the same time, it has also to be kept in mind that the exercise of such a power may not result in an affront to public outrage and public morality and insult to the sensitivities of the society and the order which is intended to secure the finest hours of justice may not become a slur in the name of justice. It is thus, imperative for this Court to see the nature of offence and the diabolism of its execution and evaluate whether the compounding/quashing of the offence or quashing of the F.I.R. is likely to enhance the cause of justice or defeat the power of criminal justice system. It is for this reason that the Full Bench while acknowledging the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be extraordinary, effective instrumentality to maintain and control social order, ended with a word “caution” that the compromise should not be abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or it should not be a compromise that will promote savagery. If the facts of the case are to be seen, then the permission to quash the F.I.R. is certainly going to result in promotion of savage acts in the society as acceptance of this petition would send ripples of wrong message to the society and Criminal Misc. No.M-31501 of 2010 -4- encourage barbarism. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and others v. State of Punjab 2011(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 127 (supra) is not attracted to the facts of this case, as the Court was dealing with an appeal wherein it maintained the conviction of the accused therein in particular circumstances and keeping in view the delay and settlement between the parties it accepted the plea to bury the controversy. In the instant case, however, it is power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which has been invoked and the Court for the reasons which have been stated above, acknowledges its constraints, and the compromise being abhorrent to the society and thus not compoundable. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) July 19, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO