Crl.M.No.M-12076 of 2008 -1 - IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-12076 of 2008 Date of Decision : 8.7.2008. Anmol Pandit and others ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.S.P.S.Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.I.P.S.Sidhu, Sr.DAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.R.K.Trikha, Advocate for respondent No.2. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in which the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.70 dated 21.3.2007 under Sections 406,498-A,506,34 IPC at P.S. Sadar, Hoshiarpur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute by way of written compromise deed dated 25.4.2008 which is attached as Annexure P-2 with the petition. According to the averments made in the petition, marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnised on 17.8.2006 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Hoshiarpur but no child was born out of the wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 19.2.2007 before the Crime against Women and Child Support Unit, P.S.Sadar, Hoshiarpur, whereafter the aforesaid FIR Crl.M.No.M-12076 of 2008 -2 - was registered. The petitioners herein had filed an application for anticipatory bail before this Court namely Crl.M.No.28129-M of 2007 which was allowed vide order dated 10.5.2007 with the condition that the petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court as and when challan is presented and shall furnish security in a sum of Rs.1 lac to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur within a period of two months. Challan was presented and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence and the present petition was filed before this Court for quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings arising therefrom alleging therein that on 25.4.2008 the parties to the petition entered into a compromise. On the same day, a joint petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 before, the Additional District Judge, Mohali and out of the agreed amount of Rs.3 lacs, it was recorded before the Court that Rs.2 lacs has been received by respondent No.2 in the form of draft No.27170 dated 23.4.2008 and it was settled that respondent No.2 shall be entitled to Rs.1 lac after the quashing of the FIR which shall be paid after getting it released from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a full Bench Judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225 and argued that the FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise even in a case of non-compoundable offence. Upon notice of motion, respondent No.2 has put in appearance in this Court along with her counsel Sh.R.K.Trikha, Advocate who has filed reply dated 8.7.2008, which is taken on record. Respondent No.2, has orally Crl.M.No.M-12076 of 2008 -3 - as well as in the reply, which is in the form of affidavit, accepted the terms and conditions of the compromise deed dated 25.4.2008 (Annexure P-2) and has stated that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. While dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise a Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005(2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723, opined as under:- “27. To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482, of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “to secure the ends of justice”. 28. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the 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 power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. 29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Crl.M.No.M-12076 of 2008 -4 - Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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-meters 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. Crl.M.No.M-12076 of 2008 -5 - 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 vital and an extra-ordinary 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.” Compromise in modern society is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J., the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. Inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not limited to matrimonial cases alone. The Court has wide powers to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Exercise of power in a given situation will depend upon facts of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation but it is a vital and extra-ordinary instrument to maintain and control social order. Resolution of dispute by way of compromise between two warring groups should be encouraged unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). Crl.M.No.M-12076 of 2008 -6 - Keeping in view the above, the petition is allowed and FIR No.70 dated 21.3.2007 under Sections 406,498-A,506,34 IPC at P.S. Sadar, Hoshiarpur and consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 8.7.2008. Judge Meenu