Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajvinder Singh @ Rajju And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 July, 2022

           IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
                          CHANDIGARH

266                                                   CRM-M-4435-2022 (O&M)
                                                      Date of Decision: 04.07.2022

RAJVINDER SINGH @ RAJJU AND OTHERS
                                                                     ... Petitioners
                                      Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
                                                                   ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
                                 ***
Present: Ms. Shrishti Sharma, Advocate for
         Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for the petitioners.
             Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, DAG, Punjab.
             Mr. Shishir Mishra, Advocate
             for respondents No.2 and 3.
                                     ****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

By means of the instant petition, the jurisdiction of this Court

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been invoked

for seeking quashing of FIR No.04 dated 07.01.2022 under Sections 452, 323,

148, 149, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police

Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib and all other consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 18.01.2022

(Annexure P-2) entered into between the parties.

2 The parties were directed to appear before the learned trial

Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 03.02.2022 passed by this Court to get

their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at between the

parties and a report in this regard was called for.

3. Pursuant to the said order, report has been received from the

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh vide Memo No.14 dated 09.03.2022. The

relevant extract of the latest report is reproduced as under:-

1 of 7

CRM-M-4435-2022 (O&M) -2-

"(i) Total seven accused persons namely Rajvinder Singh @ Rajju, Gagandeep Singh @ Jaswant Singh, Swaran Singh, Joginder Kaur @ Inder Kaur, Pritpal Kaur @ Laddi, Dalwinder Kaur @ Rajji and Harwinder Kaur @ Billi @ Bholi have been arrayed in the FIR as per statements of complainant Harwinder Singh and victim Karamjit Kaur and IO ASI Paramjit Singh No.236/FGS and as per FIR;

(ii) None of the accused has been declared as Proclaimed Offender in the present case;

(iii) The challan is yet to be presented in the present case;

(iv) From the statements of the parties, it seems that the compromise between the parties is voluntary, genuine and without any coercion or undue influence."

4. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of

compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to

the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties.

5. Mr. Shishir Mishra, Advocate, appearing on behalf of

respondents No.2 and 3, reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the

FIR and all other consequential proceedings being quashed.

6. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of "Kulwinder

Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another" reported as

(Punjab and Haryana High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has

observed as under:

"(28) 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

2 of 7

CRM-M-4435-2022 (O&M) -3-

ends of justice".

(29) In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and Ors., 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."

(30) 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.

(31) No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

(32) 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.

(33) The only inevitable conclusion from the above

3 of 7

CRM-M-4435-2022 (O&M) -4-

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.

(34) 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. 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 a 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."

7. The legal principles as laid down for quashing of the judgment

were also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Gian

Singh Versus State of Punjab and another,(2012) 10 SCC 303'.

Furthermore, the broad principles for exercising the powers under Section

482 were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others

4 of 7

CRM-M-4435-2022 (O&M) -5-

versus State of Gujarat and another" (2017) 9 SCC 641'.

8. It is evident that in view of the amicable resolution of the issues

amongst the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of

the proceedings. The furtherance of the proceedings is likely to be a waste

of judicial time and there appears to be no chances of conviction.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of

'Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online

SC 834', that the matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or

in the matter in which the nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity

or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which

would override public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the

settlement arrived at amongst the parties. The observation of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court is extracted as under:-

"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra- ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

5 of 7

CRM-M-4435-2022 (O&M) -6-

10. The following relevant factors emerge from perusal of the case

as well as the subsequent developments supplementing a case for invocation

of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:

(i) That the dispute is arising from a sudden quarrel between the parties resulting in injuries being caused to the complainant. The injuries are on the non-vital parts of the body.

(ii) That the FIR in question pertains to the year 2022 and the case is still at the stage of investigation.

(iii) That the petitioners No.1, 2, 5 and 6 are in their thirties and the petitioner No.7 is 44 years of age and continuation of criminal proceedings will cause severe repercussions to the petitioners in discharge of their social obligations as well as at their work place.

(iv) That the petitioners No.3 and 4 are in their early seventies and protraction of criminal trial will cause mental agony to the petitioners in their old age.

(v) That continuation of criminal proceedings between the parties is not likely to sub-serve any larger public interest.

(vi) The offence in question cannot be said to be heinous or as an offence that would be shocking to the conscience of the society or public at large. It can also not be termed as one shocking to the conscience of the Court nor can it be said to have fallen under any of the prohibited categories.

(vii) The proceedings are likely to end in futility for want of the complainant to support the case of prosecution;

(viii) The petitioners do not suffer from any criminal antecedents and have not indulged in any such or similar case during the pendency of the case or after registration of the FIR.

(ix) The complainant and other independent witnesses are not likely to support the case of the prosecution. Continuation of the proceedings is likely to be a wastage of judicial

6 of 7

CRM-M-4435-2022 (O&M) -7-