1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 27154-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 4.12.2008 *** Rajinder Kumar & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR. Present:- Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Replies of respondents No.2 to 4 are taken on record. The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 56 dated 22.2.1998, registered under Sections 326, 382, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC in police station City Abohar and also the consequent proceedings thereto, on the basis of compromise stated to have entered between them. The impugned FIR was got registered by one Moman (since deceased), husband of respondent No.2 and father of respondents No.3 and 4, with the allegations that on 22.2.1998 when he along with his wife and daughter came to Abohar to attend the hearing of the case, the petitioners assaulted him and also snatched cash amount from them. It has been contended that petitioner No.1 Rajinder Kumar is married to respondent No.4-Nirmala Devi while petitioner No.2 is his brother and petitioner No.3 is their maternal uncle. On account of strained relations between the married couple, some proceedings were initiated by her against her husband i.e. petitioner No.1 and the impugned FIR is also an outcome of the tussle going on between the parties, but now the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables and 2 respondent No.4 has also joined the company of petitioner No.1 and they are living happily. It has further been pointed out that complainant Moman has since expired and respondents No.2 to 4 being his legal representatives have also decided not to pursue the instant case against the petitioners, as a consequence of the said compromise. Compromise-deed (Annexure P-2) has also been placed on record. Even in the replies filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 it has been reiterated that the matter has been resolved amicably and respondent No.4 has gone back to her matrimonial home and is living happily there and they have no objection in quashing of the impugned FIR. 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 3 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 case, as emerges from record, the parties have mutually settled their dispute and have purchased peace for each other. The complainant Moman is no more alive while his legal representatives have decided to withdrawn from the prosecution. Even Respondent No.4 has returned to her matrimonial home and they are living in congenial atmosphere. Taking into account these facts, 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 4 is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings thereto in respect of the petitioners are quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE December 4, 2008 Jiten