Kaptan vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6407 P&H

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

236
                                                 CRR-1178-2022 (O&M)
                                             Date of decision: 08.07.2022

KAPTAN                                                       .........Petitioner

                                VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA                                             ....Respondent


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

Present:    Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, Asstt. A.G. Haryana.

            Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate
            for the complainant.

                *****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J.(Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed against the

impugned judgment dated 16.05.2022 passed by Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Palwal and the judgment dated 27.07.2018 and order of

quantum of sentence dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Hathin in FIR No. 68 dated 22.03.2015 registered under

Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station

Bahin, District Palwal.

2. On the last date, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the matter had been amicably resolved between the parties during the

pendency of the proceedings. The parties were directed to appear before

the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 30.05.2022 of

1 of 8

CRR-1178-2022 (O&M) -2-

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 (Junior Division)-cum-JMIC, Sub Division, Hathin, District

Palwal vide Memo No. 293 dated 30.06.2022. The relevant extract of the

report is reproduced as under:-

"The injured and prosecution namely Rajender and Pushpender has also stated that compromise has taken place between them and the accused Kaptan on dated 26.05.2022 as both the parties belong to the same family. He further stated that the compromise was executed in presence of Panchayat members and relatives of both parties without any pressure or force.

The complainant and the injured parties have been identified by the respective counsels. The statement made by the parties are attached here with kind perusal and your honour. The parties have entered into for compromise on the voluntarily and appears to be genuine. In the present case none of accused have been declared proclaimed offender."

4. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of the

compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection

to the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties.

5. Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate for the complainant reiterates

the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR and all the 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

been observed as under :

2 of 8

CRR-1178-2022 (O&M) -3-

'(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

CRR-1178-2022 (O&M) -4-

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

CRR-1178-2022 (O&M) -5-

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 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'.

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-

5 of 8

CRR-1178-2022 (O&M) -6-

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.

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) The dispute is arising from a scuffle between the parties

resulting in injuries being caused to the complainant party.

The injuries are simple in nature.

ii) The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated

27.07.2018 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of 02 years by the Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Hathin. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the

aforementioned order was dismissed by the Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Palwal vide order date

16.05.2022 wherein the sentence was reduced to 01

year.

iii) Petitioner is 32 years of age and continuation of criminal

proceedings will cause severe repercussions to the

6 of 8

CRR-1178-2022 (O&M) -7-

petitioners in discharge of their social obligations as well as

in their work place.

iv) The FIR was registered in the year 2015 and the petitioner

has undergone the agony of a criminal trial for a period of 07

years.

v) The parties are member of the same family and continuation

of proceedings is likely to spoil their relations in the family.

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;

vii) Continuation of the proceedings and forcing the parties to

undergo rigours of criminal proceedings is not likely to sub-

serve any large public interest;

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

parties to support the case of the prosecution;

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

the proceedings;

x) 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 FIR.

xi) 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.

                                7 of 8

 CRR-1178-2022 (O&M)                                                   -8-

11. In view of the report of the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-JMIC, Sub Division, Hathin, District Palwal 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 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 impugned judgment dated 16.05.2022 passed by

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Palwal and the judgment dated

27.07.2018 and order of quantum of sentence dated 27.07.2018 passed by

the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hathin in FIR No. 68 dated

22.03.2015 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 452 and 506 of

the IPC at Police Station Bahin, District Palwal are set aside qua the

petitioner and the petitioner shall be released forthwith in case he is not

required in any other case. However, the same would be subject to

payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the

"Punjab and Haryana High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund",

Chandigarh", within one month from receipt of certified copy of this

order.

Petition is allowed.

                                                 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JULY 08, 2022                                          JUDGE
Vishal Sharma


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




                                       8 of 8