R.S. Arora vs State And Anr.
1995 Latest Caselaw 94 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

(1) This is a petition for quashing of the Fir No .70/1990 under Sections 452/506/392/34 Indian Penal Code lodged by one Mr.Sanjay Bhandari, respondent No.2 at Police Station - Malviya Nagar, New Delhi pending in the Court of Shri O.P.Saini, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.

(2) Mr. S.K. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated that as a matter of fact Mr.Sanjay Bhandari, respondent No.2 was a sub-tenant and civil litigation was pending between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the Fir was lodged as there was dispute inter se between the parties. It. has also been argued before me that the possession of the premises in question has been handed over by the said respondent No.2 and he has made an application in the Civil Court that he does not want to press the complaint which he has filed against the petitioner and others. Even in this Court on 22.2.1993 a statement to this effect has been recorded that respondent No.2 does not want to press the matter. In support of his contentions Mr. Mittal has cited . Mr.Mittal has stated that the petitioner is a Government employee and he is working as Superintending Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and it will be in the interest of justice if the proceedings pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate are quashed.

(3) On the other hand, Ms.Mukta Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that this Court while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") has no jurisdiction to quash the proceedings in relation to offences which are non-compoundable as there is a specific bar provided under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code . Ms.Gupta in support of her arguments has cited 1987 (2) Jt Sc 361, 1991 Cr.L.J. 2758, 1994 Cr.L.J. 2928.

(4) I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is true that offences which are non compoundable in relation to the quashing of such offences, the High Court has to act with great caution and circumspection but to agree with the arguments of learned counsel for the State that those offences which are non-compoundable in view of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code ., the High Court will be without power although parties have settled their matter amicably, would be to make the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code . nugatory and ineffective. The Parliament has specifically provided Section 482 in the Criminal Procedure Code . and High Court in exercise of these powers which are plenary are neither fettered by any provisions of the Code and certainly not by Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code . So long as these powers are exercised by the High Court to secure the ends of justice and to stop abuse of the process of the Court. Compromise in modern society is a sine qua non of harmony arid orderly behavior. Compromise is the soul of justice. Exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code . in disputes which emanates out of matrimonial differences, landlord-tenant matters or commercial transactions are to advance the course of justice. No useful purpose will be served after the parties have amicably settled their disputes, buried their past, want to live in a spirit of peace and harmony to relegate them before the police and the Courts, that will be sheer abuse of the process of Court and instead of securing justice would amount to perpetuating injustice to such parties, who have compromised their matters. In the present dispute before me as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter has already been settled between the landlord-tenant, i.e. petitioner and respondent No.2. The possession has been taken over. There is categorical statement recorded by this Court of respondent No.2 that he does not want to proceed with the matter. What useful purpose will be served in such a case when complainant himself is not ready to proceed to set it for trial, it will result in wastage of public money and valuable time of Court below.

(5) I deem it a fit case where in exercise of inherent powers of this Court, I quash the aforesaid Fir No.70/1990 and the proceedings emanating thereto.