Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bahadur Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 26 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
295
CRM-M-15588-2022(O&M)
Date of decision: 26.07.2022
BAHADUR SINGH AND OTHERS
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present : Mr. Kulbir Singh Saini, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG Punjab.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Arjinder Singh Sidhu, 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.235 dated 14.11.2021 under Sections 323, 341, 324, 506, 427,
148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Pasyana
District Patiala and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the
basis of compromise dated 12.12.2021 (Annexure P-2) entered between the parties.
2 The parties were directed to appear before the learned trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 18.04.2022 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 Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Patiala vide Memo No.98 dated 17.05.2022. The relevant
extract of the report is reproduced as under:-
1 of 7
CRM-M-15588-2022(O&M) -2 -
1. In this case only 7 persons named Bahadur Singh, Satwinder
Singh, Baldev Singh, Joginder Singh, Harmanjot Kaur, Manjit
Kaur and Gurinder Singh have been arrayed as accused.
2. None of the accused persons of the present case has been
declared as proclaimed offender.
3. As per statement of parties so suffered in the Court the
compromise is genuine, voluntarily and is voluntarily arrived at
with free consent and without any pressure, coercion, undue
influence and inducement from any quarter.
4. Accused persons are not involved in any other FIR as per our
office record.
5. Gurdeep Singh is the only victim/complainant in the present
case and no other victim/complainant in this case except
Gurdeep Singh.
This Court is satisfied that the complainant, as accused have
suffered their statements voluntarily without any pressure,
threat or coercion. The above stated person is the accused in the
present 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.
5. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, 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.
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
2 of 7
CRM-M-15588-2022(O&M) -3 -
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 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
3 of 7
CRM-M-15588-2022(O&M) -4 -
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 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
4 of 7
CRM-M-15588-2022(O&M) -5 -
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 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 sudden provocation resulting in minor scuffle
between the parties causing injuries to the complainant. The injuries caused
were simple in nature;
ii. Petitioner Nos 1 and 3 are in their late forties and petitioner No.6 is in his
5 of 7
CRM-M-15588-2022(O&M) -6 -
early fifties and continuation of criminal proceedings will cause severe
repercussions to the petitioners in discharge of their social obligations as well
as in their work place;
iii. Petitioner Nos.2, 5 and 7 are in their twenties and continued criminal
incarceration is likely to result in negative impact on their future prospects;
iv. Petitioner No.4 is 75 years old and protraction of the criminal trial will cause
mental agony to the petitioner in their old age;
v. The parties are residents of same village and continuation of criminal
proceedings is likely to spoil the peaceful atmosphere of the village;
vi. The case is still at the initial stage as FIR was registered in the year 2021 and
investigation has not been completed yet;
vii.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;
viii.Continuation of the proceedings and forcing the parties to undergo rigours of
criminal proceedings is not likely to sub-serve any large public interest;
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
proceedings are likely to end in futility for want of parties to support the case
of the prosecution;
x. No larger public purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings;
xi. 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.
xii.The object of law is well served when the parties resolve their differences and
6 of 7
CRM-M-15588-2022(O&M) -7 -
choose to peacefully co-exist and live in harmony.
11. In view of the report of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala 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.235 dated
14.11.2021 under Sections 323, 341, 324, 506, 427, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Pasyana District Patiala and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the
petitioners in view of compromise dated 12.12.2021 (Annexure P-2). 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 Association,
Chandigarh, within one month from receipt of certified copy of this order.
Petition is allowed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
July 26, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
