Malkiat Singh vs U.T. Chandigarh And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7058 P&H

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

275                       CRM M No.4090 of 2021 (O&M)
                          Date of Decision: 18.07.2022

Malkiat Singh                                                 ...Petitioner
                                 Versus
U.T., Chandigarh and others                               ... Respondents


CORAM :      HON'BLE MR. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

Present :   Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Shashank Bhandari, A.P.P, U.T., Chandigarh.

            Mr. Arun Gupta, Advocate for
            Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate
            for respondent Nos.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

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

quashing of FIR No.0132 dated 06.11.2020 under Sections 279 and

337 of the Indian Penal Code 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') at

Police Station West Sector-11, Chandigarh and all other consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated

23.12.2020 (Annexure P-2) entered between the parties.

2 The parties were directed to appear before the learned

trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 29.01.2021 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.

1 of 9

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

the Judicial Magistrate Ist, Class, Chandigarh vide Memo No.CJJD-

AHL-2021/21 dated 18.03.2021. The relevant extract of the report is

reproduced as under:-

"Thereafter, Investigating Office SI Kuldeep Singh appeared and he suffered statement that he is Investigating Officer in the present case. In the present case, there is complainant namely Jayant and injured namely Abhishek Mahajan in FIR No.132 dated 06.11.2020 registered at Police Station, Sector-11, Chandigarh. There is no other person involved in the present FIR and no other criminal case is pending against the accused/petitioner namely Malkiat Singh. Queries were also put to the parties regarding the genuineness of the compromise during the proceedings. During query, parties have replied that the compromise has been entered into with their free Will without any threat, coercion or undue influence from any corner. It is further submitted that there are only one accused i.e. Malkiat Singh in the present case. Jayant is the complainant. Abhishek Mahajan is injured victim. As per the statement of the parties and the Investigating Officer, Accused Malkiat Singh is not involved in any other case."

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.

2 of 9

5. Mr. Arun Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of

respondent Nos.2 and 3 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 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 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

3 of 9

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 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

4 of 9

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 versus State of Gujarat and

another" (2017) 9 SCC 641'.

5 of 9

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

6 of 9

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 CrPC:-

i. The FIR was registered due to a car accident

between the parties.

ii. The petitioner is in his early thirties and

continuation of criminal proceedings will cause

severe repercussions to the petitioner in discharge

of his social obligations as well as in his work

place.

iii. That the challan has been presented and charges

have been framed. The case is still at the initial

stage as no prosecution witnesses have been

examined.

iv. 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

7 of 9

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.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.

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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Chandigarh 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

8 of 9

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.0132 dated 06.11.2020 under Sections 279, 337 IPC at Police

Station West Sector-11, Chandigarh and subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner/s in view of

compromise dated 23.12.2020 (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 Environment

Protection Fund,' Chandigarh within one month from receipt of

certified copy of this order. .

Petition is allowed.

18.07.2022                           (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
amit rana                                       JUDGE

             Whether reasoned/speaking :              Yes/No
             Whether reportable         :             Yes/No




                                     9 of 9