Ravinder Singh And Another vs Lakhwinder Singh And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6194 P&H

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

272

                                                    CRM-M-14410-2022
                                             Date of decision: 06.07.2022

RAVINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER                                   ........Petitioners

                                 VERSUS

LAKHWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER                                 ....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

Present:    Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr.Vishnu Dutt, Advocate
            for respondents No.1 and 2.

                         *****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J.(Oral)

1. By means of the instant petition, the jurisdiction of this

Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been invoked for seeking

quashing of Criminal complaint No. COMI-570-2014 dated 17.07.2014

(Annexure P-1) under Sections 307, 324, 325, 326, 506 and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and

summoning order dated 23.07.2015 passed under Sections 323, 324 read

with Section 34 IPC and all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 23.03.2022 (Annexure P-4)

entered between the parties.

2. The parties were directed to appear before the learned trial

1 of 8

Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide orders dated 05.04.2022 of 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

Civil Judge Jr. Division-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana

vide Memo No. 2173 dated 09.05.2022. The relevant extract of the report

is reproduced as under:-

"1. The complaint was originally filed against three persons namely Amarjit Singh (petitioner No.2), Ravinder Singh (petitioner No.1) and one Balwinder Singh son of Sh. Bhagwan Singh. However, only the present petitioners were summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. None of the accused has been declared proclaimed offender.

3. The case is at the stage of after charge evidence.

4. The compromise seems to be genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence.

5. The compromise has been effeccted with all the accused of the present case and the complainants/injured."

4. Mr.Vishnu Dutt, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondents

No. 1 and 2 and reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the

complaint and all the other consequential proceedings being quashed.

5. 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

been observed as under :

2 of 8

'(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 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

3 of 8

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 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

4 of 8

compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.

6. 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 SCC303'.

Still further, 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

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

7. 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.

8. 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-

5 of 8

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.

9. 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) The dispute is arising from a scuffle due to installation of

tower between the parties resulting in injuries being caused

to the complainant.

ii) The injuries caused are simple in nature. The petitioners

were summoned under Section 323, 324 read with Section

34 of the IPC vide order dated 23.07.2015.

iii) Petitioner No.1 is 40 years of age and petitioner No.2 is 34

years old and continued incarceration of the petitioners is

likely to cause severe repercussions to the petitioners in

discharge of their social obligations as well as in their

work place.

iv) That the complaint was registered in 2014 and charges were

framed in 2019 and protraction of criminal trial will cause

6 of 8

mental agony to the petitioners as this trial has been pending

for 08 years.

v) 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;

vi) Continuation of the proceedings and forcing the parties to

undergo rigours of criminal proceedings is not likely to sub-

serve any large public interest;

vii) The proceedings are likely to end in futility for want of

parties to support the case of the prosecution;

viii) No larger public purpose would be served by continuation of

the proceedings;

ix) Parties do not suffer any criminal antecedents and have not

indulged in any such or similar case during the pendency of

the case or after registration of the complaint.

x) The complainant is not likely to support the case of the

prosecution. Continuation of the proceedings is likely to be a

waste of judicial time. The object of law is well served when

the parties resolve their differences and choose to peacefully

co-exist and live in harmony.

10. In view of the report of the Civil Judge Jr. Division-cum-

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana and the principles laid down by

the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10

SCC 303, as well as Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya

7 of 8

Pradesh 2021 SCC Online SC 834 and also by the Full Bench of this

Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another,

2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the instant petition is allowed. The

aforesaid Criminal complaint No. COMI-570-2014 dated 17.07.2014

(Annexure P-1) under Sections 307, 324, 325, 326, 506 and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and summoning order dated 23.07.2015 passed

under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC and all other

consequential proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed qua

the petitioners in view of compromise dated 23.03.2022 (Annexure P-4).

However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-

to be deposited by the each petitioner with the ""Punjab and Haryana

High Court Bar Clerk's Association", within one month from receipt of

certified copy of this order.

Petition is allowed.

                                                 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JULY 06, 2022                                          JUDGE
Vishal Sharma


                   Whether speaking/reasoned :           Yes/No
                   Whether Reportable         :          Yes/No




                                       8 of 8