Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
277
CRM-M-39060-2021
Date of decision: 12.07.2022
JATINDER SINGH ........Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Prabhjot Singh Waraich, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Kushbir K. Bhullar, Advocate
for respondent No.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 FIR No. 0142 dated 14.06.2019 under Sections 457 and 380
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC")
registered at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib
(Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising there
from, on the basis of compromise dated 10.09.2021 (Annexure P-2)
entered between the parties.
2. The parties were directed to appear before the learned trial
1 of 8
Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide orders dated 21.09.2021 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
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib vide Memo No.
107 dated 04.10.2021. The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as
under:-
"1) Only one accused namely Jatinder Singh has been
arrayed in the said FIR, who has appeared today in the
Court for making statement and that accused is not
absconding/proclaimed offender in this case. As stated by
the accused, he is party to the compromise.
2) As stated by the accused, except the present case, no
other criminal case is pending against the accused.
3) In view of the statements of both the parties, the
compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the
parties."
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. Ms. Kushbir K. Bhullar, Advocate appears on behalf of
respondents No. 2 and 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
'(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.
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
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 FIR is a result of misunderstanding, as in fact petitioner
had bought agricultural tool in question from scrap dealer
and later lost contact of scrap dealer which resulted in the
registration of the present FIR.
ii) The petitioner is 33 years in age 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.
iii) The case is still at the initial stage as FIR was registered in
2019 and the prosecution witnessess have not been examined
yet.
iv) The offence in question cannot be said to be heinous or as an
offence that would be shocking to the conscience of the
6 of 8
society or public at large. It can also not be termed as one
shocking to the conscience of the Court;
v) Continuation of the proceedings and forcing the parties to
undergo rigours of criminal proceedings is not likely to sub-
serve any large public interest;
vi) The proceedings are likely to end in futility for want of
parties to support the case of the prosecution;
vii) No larger public purpose would be served by continuation of
the proceedings;
viii) The petitioner does not suffer any criminal antecedents and
has not indulged in any such or from similar case during the
pendency of the case or after registration of the FIR.
ix) 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.
11. In view of the report of the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib 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 FIR
No. 0142 dated 14.06.2019 under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian
7 of 8
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") registered at Police
Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-1) and all other
consequential proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed qua
the petitioner in view of compromise (Annexure P-2). However, the same
would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by
the 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 12, 2022 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
