Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shyam Sunder And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 12 May, 2022
CRM-M-2988-2022(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
263
CRM-M-2988-2022(O&M)
Date of decision: 12.05.2022
SHYAM SUNDER AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present : Mr. Mukesh K. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Anish Verma, Advocate
for respondent No.2/complainant.
*****
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.241 dated 07.07.2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Model Town Panipat
and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) entered between the parties.
2 The parties were directed to appear before the learned trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 16.03.2022 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 Chief
1 of 7
CRM-M-2988-2022(O&M) -2 -
Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, vide Memo No.303 dated 21.04.2022. The relevant
extract of the report is reproduced as under:-
1. With regard to queries no.1 & 2, there is only one
complainant namely Sanjeev Kumar son of Lal Chand and
there is no accused namely Shyam Sunder is involved and he
has never been absconded or ever declared proclaimed
person in this case. However, son of accused namely Gaurav
Kamal also appeared before the Court and recorded his
statement along with his father.
2. With regard to query no.3, the instant case is fixed for
19.05.2022 for consideration on charge.
3. With regard to query no.4, joint statement of parties
has been recorded and they have been duly identified by their
respective counsels. This Court is satisfied that parties have
entered into compromise without any fear or coercion and
they are making the statement voluntarily and they both have
suffered that they have compromised the matter without any
fear, free will or coercion.
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. Anish Verma, 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
incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., "to prevent abuse of the
2 of 7
CRM-M-2988-2022(O&M) -3 -
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
3 of 7
CRM-M-2988-2022(O&M) -4 -
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 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
4 of 7
CRM-M-2988-2022(O&M) -5 -
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 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. It is a monetary dispute resulting from a money transaction between
the parties wherein the petitioner had taken money from the
complainant on the pretext of sending him abroad;
5 of 7
CRM-M-2988-2022(O&M) -6 -
ii. The petitioner No.1 is 58 years of age 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. Petitioner No.2 is 33 years of age and continued criminal
incarceration is likely to result in negative impact on his future
prospects;
iv. The case is at the initial stage as the FIR was registered in the year
2021 and now the case is fixed for consideration on charge;
v. Parties are related to each other and continuation of the proceedings is
likely to spoil the harmony between the family members;
vi. Parties do not suffer from 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;
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;
6 of 7
CRM-M-2988-2022(O&M) -7 -
xi. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat 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 and FIR No.241 dated
07.07.2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
registered at Police Station Model Town Panipat and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom is quashed, qua the petitioners, on the basis of
compromise dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) entered between the parties.
However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/each to be
deposited by the petitioners with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER,
Chandigarh within one month from receipt of certified copy of this order.
Petition is allowed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
12.05.2022
Amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
