1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 27970-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 4.12.2008 *** Labh Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents. With Crl. Misc. No. 27964 of 2008 Jang Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Ms. Poonam Sambhar, Advocate for petitioners. (Crl. No.27970-M of 2008 and respondent Labh Singh in Crl. Misc. No. 27964-M of 2008 Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. Mr. G.s. Sandhu, Advocate for petitioners in Crl. Misc. 27964-M of 2008 and respondent Jang Singh (In Crl. Misc. No. 27970-M of 2008). *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The above-referred petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Affidavits of complainant-respondent No.2 Jang Singh and injured Gurdev Kaur (Crl. Misc. No. 27970-M of 2008) and that of 2 complainant Labh Singh and injured Amarjit Singh and Chhinda Singh (Crl. Misc. No. 27964-M of 2008) are taken on record. Through the instant petitions quashing of FIR No.581 dated 17.9.2004 registered under Sections 452, 323, 341, 294, 506, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Sadar Patiala and cross-version recorded therein under Sections 323, 324, 34, 294, 506 IPC and also the consequent proceedings thereto has been sought. It has been contended that on 17.9.2004 a scuffle had taken place between the parties, for which the impugned FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by Jang Singh while a cross-version was recorded therein pursuant to a statement made by Labh Singh and the parties are facing trial in the aforesaid FIR as well as cross-version and now with the intervention of respectables, the parties have decided not to pursue their respective cases pending against each other. Both the parties have also placed on record compromise dated 20.3.2008 stated to have entered between them, showing that the parties have decided not to pursue their respective cases. In the affidavits filed today by the author of FIR and cross- version namely Jang Singh and Labh Singh and injured Gurdev Kaur and Amarjit Singh and Chhinda Singh, there are recitals of the parties having compromised the matter and their no objection as to the quashing of the impugned FIR and cross version recorded therein pending against each other. By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in following words:- “ The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when 3 parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non- compoundable offence(s) has held as under:- “28. 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. 29. 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.” 4 In the instant cases, as emerges from record, the parties who hail from one and the same village have mutually settled their dispute and have put to rest the litigation. Since the complainants and injured have decided to withdraw from their respective cases, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution is nothing but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court. Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having arrived at between the parties, these are the fit cases where interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petitions are allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and cross-version recorded therein as well as all other consequent proceedings thereto, qua the respective petitioners, are quashed. A copy of this order be placed in the connected petition, referred to above. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE December 4, 2008 Jiten