Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasvinder Singh Alias Jassi And ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 July, 2022
CRM-M-8397-2020 (O&M) (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
264
CRM-M-8397-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision:19.07.2022
JASVINDER SINGH ALIAS JASSI AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present : Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. G.S Rawat, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
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 has been invoked for
seeking quashing of FIR No.187 dated 10.11.2019 under Sections 458, 323,
506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station
Kartarpur, District Jalandhar Rural (Annexure P-1) and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise
dated 23.11.2019 (Annexure P-2) entered between the parties.
2 The parties were directed to appear before the learned trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 26.02.2020 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 8
CRM-M-8397-2020 (O&M) (2)
3. Pursuant to the said order, report has been received from the
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar vide Memo No.148 dated
01.04.2022. The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under:-
" (1). This case FIR No.187 dated 10.11.2019 under
Section 458, 506, 323, 34 IPC of PS, Kartarpur was lodged on
the complaint of Varun Kumar s/o Swaran Dass. After
investigation in this case challan was presented in Court on
16.12.2019 against accused Jaswinder Kumar @ Jassi s/o
Gurmej Chand,, Gurpreet @ Gopi s/o Kashmir and Jaswinder
Kumar @ Monu s/o Chaman Lal (accused). On 02.03.2022,
complainant Varun Kumar and above named accused persons
appeared in Court and suffered a statement regarding their
compromise. Copy of the statement of complainant and
accused are attached therewith.
The complainant and accused have compromised
the matter. There is no grudge remain between parties. The
compromise is voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion.
2. In this case, no accused has been declared
proclaimed offender by the Court.
3. In this case, charges were not framed yet.
4. This Court is of the opinion that the compromise
effected between the complainant and accused is genuine,
voluntarily and out of their free will"
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. G.S Rawat, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.2
and reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR and all the other
consequential proceedings being quashed.
2 of 8
CRM-M-8397-2020 (O&M) (3)
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 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
3 of 8
CRM-M-8397-2020 (O&M) (4)
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 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
4 of 8
CRM-M-8397-2020 (O&M) (5)
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'.
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
5 of 8
CRM-M-8397-2020 (O&M) (6)
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.
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 dispute arose from a minor scuffle between the parties due
to parking of car resulting in simple injuries being caused to the
complainant;
ii. Petitioners are in their thirties and continuation of criminal
proceedings will cause severe repercussions to the petitioners in
discharge of their social obligations as well in their work place;
iii. The FIR registered was registered in the year 2019 and the
charges have been framed. The case is still at the initial stage as
no witnesses have been examined so far;
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
6 of 8
CRM-M-8397-2020 (O&M) (7)
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 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 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 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 Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar
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.
FIR No.187 dated 10.11.2019 under Sections 458, 323, 506 and 34 of the
7 of 8
CRM-M-8397-2020 (O&M) (8)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Kartarpur, District
Jalandhar Rural (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of
compromise dated 23.11.2019 (Annexure P-2) entered between the parties.
However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- each
to be deposited by the petitioners with the 'Punjab and Haryana High
Court Bar Clerks Welfare Fund', Chandigarh within one month from
receipt of certified copy of this order.
Petition is allowed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
July 19, 2022
Amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
