1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 12658-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 29.5.2008 *** Evel Singh & Avel @ Pappu. .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. Mr. B.S. Mann, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Respondent No.2-complainant got registered an FIR bearing No. 155 dated 9.12.2003, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC at Police Station Sehna, District Barnala containing the allegations that on that very day the petitioner drove TATA Sumo vehicle in rash and negligent manner, as a result the vehicle dashed into a trolley and the complainant as as well as Rajkumar suffered injuries on their person. Lateron, during the investigation by the police, the petitioner being the driver of the offending vehicle was challaned. Through the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking the quashing of the FIR, referred to above, on the averments that due to intervention of respectables, the matter has been amicable settled between them and the injured have decided not to pursue the matter any more. Compromise Annexure P-1 has also been placed on record. Upon notice issued, affidavit of respondent No.2-complainant Baljinder Singh has also been placed on record by his counsel wherein the compromise Annexure P-1 has been authenticated and according to learned counsel for respondent No.2, as per his instructions, the complainant is also 2 having no objection in the quashing of the FIR. Similarly, another injured of the said occurrence namely Raj Kumar has also suffered his statement in the Court to the effect that the matter has been compromised and he too is having no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. 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- 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 3 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 case, as emerges from record, the parties have mutually settled their dispute and the complainant and the injured, the star witnesses of the prosecution have since decided to withdraw from the prosecution, 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, it is a fit case 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 petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 29,2008 Jiten