Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 22 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
253
CRM-M-30318-2019
Decided on : 22.09.2022
Sandeep Singh
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. JS Arora, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Manish Mehta, Advocate
for respondents No.2.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed
by the petitioner, for quashing of FIR No. 213, dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure
P-1), for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, at Police Station
Adampur, District Jalandhar, and all the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise-deed dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure P-
2).
2. Vide order dated 19.07.2019, the affected parties were directed
to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their
respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate was to submit a report in this regard giving certain
details as enumerated in the said order.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 19.07.2019, passed by this Court,
the parties have appeared before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Jalandhar, and as per report dated 19.10.2019, submitted to this Court, both
JAWALA RAM
2022.09.23 17:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
the parties have got recorded their respective statements in Court. The
operative part of the report received from learned Court below is as under:-
"As per the statements of the parties, the FIR No. 213, dated
11.12.2006, under Section 420 of IPC, PS Adampur, Jalandhar,
was got registered by complainant Paramjit Kaur against accused
Sandeep Singh S/o Hardev Singh, r/o VPO Padhiana, Jalandhar.
With the intervention of the respectables and the near and dear
ones of both sides, the matter has been amicably settled and
compromised between the parties. The said compromise is with
the free will of the parties and without any pressure or coercion
from any corner. As per the statements of the parties there is only
one accused namely Sandeep Singh in the present FIR and accused
Sandeep Singh is not involved in any other case except the present
FIR. The copy of the Adhar Card of complainant and accused is
Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 respectively as the proof of their identities.
As per the statement of ASI Bhupinder Pal posted at
Adampur, Jalandhar, IO of the case namely Baljinder Singh, S/o
Gurdeep Singh, R/o Mehatpur, Nakodar, Jalandhar has been died
on dated 21.05.2008. The photocopy of death certificate of
Baljinder Singh has also been attached with the statement and the
same is Ex.D1 which is duly attested by him. He further stated that
as per his knowledge there is only one victim/complainant namely
Paramjit Kaur in the present FIR."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that due to intervention
of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the matter has been
resolved and private parties have effected a compromise-deed dated
06.04.2018 (Annexure P-2). At present, there remains no dispute amongst the
private parties. He further submits that in view of the compromise so effected
between the private parties, pendency of the impugned FIR and
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the
process of law.
JAWALA RAM
5. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for respondent
2022.09.23 17:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
No.2, after going through the statements and the report received from learned
Court below, very fairly admit that the private parties have resolved their
dispute and effected a compromise and that they have no objection if the
impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings are quashed on the basis
of the compromise.
6. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Kulwinder Singh
and others v. State of Punjab and another, 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 others, 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
JAWALA RAM
2022.09.23 17:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
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
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 v. 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 v. State of
Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641.
JAWALA RAM
2022.09.23 17:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of Ramgopal
and another v. 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."
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the material available on record, this Court finds that there appears to be
substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
pendency of the present criminal litigation would be abuse of process of law
since the chances of conviction of the petitioner are bleak in view of the
compromise so effected between the private parties.
10. The report alongwith statements of the affected parties received
from learned Court below would reveal that the aggrieved person has
genuinely effected a compromise with the petitioners and he has no objection
if the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.
JAWALA RAM
2022.09.23 17:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
11. Keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case and taking into consideration the ratio of the judgments in the cases of
Gian Singh (supra), Ramgopal (supra) and Kulwinder Singh (supra), this
petition is accepted and FIR No. 213, dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure P-1), for
the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, at Police Station
Adampur, District Jalandhar, and all the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner, in view of compromise-
deed dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure P-2).
12. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
September 22, 2022
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
JAWALA RAM
2022.09.23 17:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
