1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 9050-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.8.2009 *** Avtar Singh @ Lambar & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondents. With Crl. Misc. No. 9139-M of 2009 *** Hardip Singh @ Bittu & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate Mr. H.S. Tuli, Advocate Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. According to prosecution version on 3.10.2008 a scuffle took place between petitioners Avtar Singh @ Lambar & Ors. on one side and Hardip Singh @ Bittu & Ors. on the other side. On the basis of statement made by Balwinder Singh son of Puran Singh, petitioners of Crl. Misc. No. 9050-M of 2008 namely Avtar Singh @ Lambar, Sukhwinder Singh @ Vinder, Gurjant Singh @ Janta, Didar Singh @ Raja and Parkash were booked under Sections 323, 324, 325, 506, 148, 149 IPC vide FIR No. 124 dated 4.10.2008, Police Station Machhiwara, Police District Khanna, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. Likewise, pursuant to statement made by Avtar Singh @ Lambar son of Parkash Singh, the petitioners of Crl. Misc. No. 2 9139-M of 2009 namely Hardip Singh @ Bittu, Kamaljit singh @ Jeeti, Balwinder Singh @ Billa and Sharanjit Singh @ Sama were booked in the cross-case, under Sections 323,325, 506, 34 IPC, in the same FIR. Through the above-referred petitions, which are being disposed of by this common judgment, both the parties have sought the quashing of the above-stated FIR as well as cross-version therein, on the basis of compromise stated to have taken place amongst them. Written compromise dated 7.10.2008 has been annexed with both the petitions. Reply by way of affidavit of complainant Balwinder Singh of the FIR and that of Avtar Singh, the author of cross-version along with affidavits of Pritam Singh son of Piara Singh, Balwant Singh son of Pritam Singh and Hardeep Singh son of Bachan Singh, authenticating the said compromise entered between the parties have been placed on record wherein they have asserted their no objection with regard to the quashing of the impugned FIR and cross version therein. 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 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- 3 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.” In the instant cases, the parties, with prevalent of good sense have decided the dispute amicably and have purchased peace for each other. The parties hail from a common village and it would also help them to maintain and control the social order. The parties since have decided not to pursue their respective cases, there are very bleak chance of success of prosecution case. Thus, taking into account these facts coupled with the law, referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no 4 impediment in exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as continuance of such a prosecution is just an exercise in futility. In view of the discussion above, the instant petitions are allowed. Impugned FIR and the cross-version therein along-with consequent proceedings thereto, against the petitioners are quashed. A copy of this order be placed in the connected petition. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 13,2009 Jiten