Criminal Misc. No. M-1231 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-1231 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.04.2010 1. Baljit Singh son of Balbir Singh; 2. Ramesh Devi wife of Balbir Singh; both residents of 368, Phase No. 1, Urban Estate Dugri Road, Ludhiana. 3. Mahand Dev Giri son of Sh. Tulsi Ram Chela Mahant Shanti Giri, resident of Bagla Mukhi Mata Mandir. P.O. Bankhindi Dera, District Kangra (Himachal Pradesh). ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Punjab. 2. Satpal Singh son of S. Inder Singh, r/o 3-C, Race Course Road, Tehsil and District Amritsar, at present 351, New Partap Nagar, 100 Road, District Amritsar. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No. 2. Mr. Satpal Singh, complainant/respondent No. 2, in person. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR Criminal Misc. No. M-1231 of 2010 2 No. 56, dated 02.03.02, under Sections 384, 420, 465, 506 and 511 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines Amritsar (Annexure P1), on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2), and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioners. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant/respondent No. 2, solemnized the engagement of his daughter Shallu with Baljit Singh, petitioner No. 1, and spent a huge amount. It was stated that, soon after the engagement, the petitioners, demanded a sum of Rs. 1,09,000/-, from the complainant, which was paid by him. It was further stated that, after sometime, the petitioners, again demanded money, from the complainant, for getting treated Baljit Singh, petitioner No. 1, on account of heart ailment, which was paid by him, after arranging the same, from his relatives. It was further stated that, the complainant, being frustrated with the demand of the petitioners, with regard to the payment of money, from time to time, broke the engagement of his daughter with Baljit Singh, petitioner No. 1. It was further stated that, thereafter, the petitioners, started threatening the complainant, that they would not let his daughter lead a happy married life, with some other person, and ruin the same. It was further stated that, on 17.01.02, the petitioners, with a view to blackmail the complainant, and his daughter Shallu, got a false marriage certificate issued, from a Mandir, at Himachal Pradesh. It was further stated that, even the petitioners, demanded a sum of Rs. 5 lacs, from the complainant, failing which, they threatened to ruin the life of Shallu. Consequently, the aforesaid FIR, was got registered. Criminal Misc. No. M-1231 of 2010 3 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the parties, have arrived at a compromise, which is Annexure P2. She further submitted that, after the compromise, no dispute, is left, between the parties. She further submitted that, if the compromise, is accepted, and the FIR and further proceedings, are quashed, it will go a long way to create better relations, between them. 5. The Counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2, also submitted, that the parties, have arrived at a compromise, and, no dispute subsists between them. 6. The Counsel for respondent No. 1 – State, however, opposed the quashing of the FIR and the further proceedings, on the basis of compromise, on the ground, that the offences, punishable under Sections 384 and 465 IPC are non-compoundable. He further submitted that, even Ramesh Devi, petitioner No. 2, was declared, as Proclaimed Offender, and has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial Court. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is trite that jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which saves the inherent power of the High Court, to make such orders, as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice, has to be Criminal Misc. No. M-1231 of 2010 4 exercised sparingly, and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry, whether the allegations, in the complaint, are likely to be established by the evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, when the evidence comes before him. Though, it is neither possible, nor advisable to lay down any inflexible rules, to regulate such jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear that it is that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction, to quash a proceeding, at the stage of the Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence, it is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations set out, in the complaint, or the charge-sheet, do not, in law constitute, or spell out any offence, and that resort to criminal proceedings, would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, or not. Even in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604(1), it was held that, the High Court, in exercise of its powers, under Article 226 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may interfere, in the proceedings, relating to cognizable offences, to prevent the abuse of process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. However, this power should be exercised sparingly, and that too, in the rarest of rare cases. In Surendra Nath Mohanty and another Vs. State of Maharashtra 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 683 (S.C.), a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, held that the High Court cannot order the composition of offences, which are non-compoundable, as per Section 320 Cr.P.C., in exercise of its inherent powers, under Criminal Misc. No. M-1231 of 2010 5 Section 482 Cr.P.C. In Inspector of Police Vs. B. Raja Gopal and Others (2002)9 SCC, 533, the Apex Court, while setting aside the High Court order of quashing the criminal proceedings, held that merely because the parties had compromised the case, and the payment was made, in the proceedings, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the premature quashing, made by the High Court, was not in accordance with law. While defining the powers of the High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court summed up its conclusions, in case, State, through Special Cell, New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and others 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 860 (SC), in para Nos.28 and 29, which read as follows : "28. Thus the law is that Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any act of the State Legislature. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate Tribunals within the limits of their authority and to seeing that they obey the law. The powers under Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice. They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory order. However, the power Criminal Misc. No. M-1231 of 2010 6 under Article 227 is a discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an order of the High Court, such a source of power, when the High Court itself does not in terms propose to exercise any such discretionary power. It is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence, under Article 227, must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Further where the statute bans the exercise of revisional powers it would require very exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 227of the Constitution of India since the power of superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory law. It is settled law that the jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised "as the cloak of an appeal is disguise." 29. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code starts with the words "Nothing in this Code". Thus the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised even when there is a bar under Section 397 or some other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, as is set Criminal Misc. No. M-1231 of 2010 7 out in Satya Narayanan Sharma's case (supra) this power cannot be exercised if there is a statutory bar in some other enactment. If the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character, which could be corrected in exercise of revisional powers or appellate powers the High Court must refuse to exercise its inherent power. The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of the justice. The inherent power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which require interference would be few and far between. The most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out herein above fall in this category. It must be remembered that the inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or any other enactment for redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. This power should not be exercised against an express bar of Criminal Misc. No. M-1231 of 2010 8 law engrafted in any other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. This power cannot be exercised as against an express bar in some other enactment." 8. In view of the principle of law, enunciated in the aforesaid cases, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be exercised, in this case, as there is a specific bar, created by Section 320 Cr.P.C., for the composition of offences, punishable under Sections 384 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations, against the petitioners, are very serious. The daughter of the complainant/respondent No. 2, had not been married, with Baljit Singh, petitioner No. 1, and, only engagement of the daughter of the complainant/respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1, had taken place, but, later on, the same was broken. The petitioners, in connivance with each other prepared a false marriage certificate of Shallu, daughter of the complainant/respondent No. 2 with petitioner No. 1, on 17.01.02, from a Mandir, at Himachal Pradesh, with a view, to blackmail him and his daughter, and, made a demand of Rs. 5 lacs, failing which, they threatened, that the life of Shallu, will be ruined. If the proceedings, are quashed, on the basis of compromise, in such like heinous offences, then there will be complete lawlessness, in the society. Not only this, as stated above, petitioner No. 2, is the Proclaimed Offender, and has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial Court. No ground, therefore, is made out, for exercising the power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR, and the Criminal Misc. No. M-1231 of 2010 9 subsequent proceedings. 9. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-1231 of 2010, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 10. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned. 20.04.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE