Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Lal & Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
232-1 CRM-M- 16787 of 2018
Date of Decision:11.3.2022
Jagdish Lal and others
---Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another
---Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. P.P.S.Duggall, Advocate
for the petitioners
Ms. A.K. Khurana, D.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate
for respondent No. 2
***
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
This case has been taken up through Video Conferencing via
Webex facility in the light of Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per
instructions.
By means of the instant petition, the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been invoked seeking quashing of FIR No.
67 dated 10.6.2016 under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC registered at
Police Station Guruhar Sahai, District Ferozepur and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated
31.3.2018 (Annexure P-3).
2 Vide order dated 18.1.2019 of this Court, the parties were
directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on
26.2.2019 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
learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guruhar Sahai vide Endst
No.130 dated 7.3.2019. A relevant extract of the same reads thus:-
"Statement of accused/petitioners namely, has been
recorded jointly, whereby they deposed that the complainant
Sarwan Ram son Gurdit Ram @ Gurditta Ram has got recorded
FIR No. 67 dated 10.6.2016, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC at
PS Guruharsahai against them and now, with the intervention
of respectables, they have effected compromise. They further
deposed that they are having no grudge against each other.
They further stated that they effected compromise with their
free will and without any kind of coercion, undue influence and
pressure and they want to live in peace and harmony. They
produced their Adhar cards and copies of the same were
obtained. They were identified by counsel Shri Sunil Kamboj,
Advocate.
From the statements of the parties, it is clear that the
complainant party has voluntarily entered into a compromise
with accused without any coercion, undue influence and
pressure, with the intervention of the respectable persons of the
locality. Thus, report is accordingly submitted to the effect that
the parties have voluntarily entered into a compromise."
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. Kamal Narula, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent
No.2 and reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR and all the
other consequential proceeding 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:
"(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
3 of 9
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 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
4 of 9
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 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 verus
State of Gujarat and another" (2017) 9 SCC 641', the same are extracted
as under:
16. The broad principles which emerge from the
precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following
propositions :
16.1 Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the
High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or
to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer
new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which
inhere in the High Court;
16.2 The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court
to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding
on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between
the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of
jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While
compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by
the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is
5 of 9
attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3 In forming an opinion whether a criminal
proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate
whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the
inherent power;
16.4 While the inherent power of the High Court has a
wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure
the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of
any court;
16.5 The decision as to whether a complaint or First
Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
16.6 In the exercise of the power under Section 482
and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled,
the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity
of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot
appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the
victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly
speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is
founded on the overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences;
16.7 As distinguished from serious offences, there may
be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power
to quash is concerned;
16.8 Criminal cases involving offences which arise
from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
6 of 9
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute;
16.9 In such a case, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression
and prejudice; and
16.10 There is yet an exception to the principle set out
in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the state
have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere
dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be
justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in
an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of
upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the
balance.
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
7 of 9
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. Perusal of the FIR shows that the dispute amongst the parties is
largely in relation to a property dispute. The same cannot be said to have
large scale social repercussion or to be harmful to the society or shocking
to the conscience of the Court. Quashing of the same would not outweigh
public interest. It is also evident that the parties are cousins. The dispute
having been amicably resolved, it would promote harmony within the
family. Besides, the settlement had been entered into between the parties in
the month of March 2018 and there is nothing on record to suggest that the
parties have not honoured the settlement or the terms thereof. There has
been no repetition of any untoward incident between the parties and they do
not have any criminal track-record.
11. In view of the report of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Guruhar Sahai and the principles laid down by the Apex Court
in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, as well
8 of 9
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. 67 dated 10.6.2016 under
Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC registered at Police Station Guruhar Sahai,
District Ferozepur and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed in view of compromise/affidavit dated
31.3.2018 (Annexure P-3). However, the same would be subject to payment
of costs of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited with the Red Cross Society,
Ferozepur/Guruhar Sahai.
Petition is allowed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
11.3.2022
PARAMJIT
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
