Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harmesh Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 28 September, 2022

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
265
                                                       CRM-M-15739-2021
                                                       Decided on : 28.09.2022

Harmesh Kaur and another
                                                               . . . Petitioner(s)
                                         Versus
State of Punjab and another
                                                            . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

PRESENT: Ms. Navreen Kaur, Advocate for
         Mr. Hakam Singh, Advocate
         for the petitioner(s).

             Mr. Anmol Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

             Mr. Angad Parmar, Advocate
             for respondent No. 2/Complainant.
                                    ****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed

by the petitioners, for quashing of FIR No. 26, dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure

P-1), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section

13 of the Punjab Travels Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at

Police Station Rawalpindi, District Kapurthala, and all the consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise-deed dated

01.04.2021 (Annexure P-2) and with further prayer to order release of Rs.

60,000/- in favour of petitioner No. 1.

2. Vide order dated 08.04.2021, 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.

1 of 6

3. Pursuant to the order dated 08.04.2021, passed by this Court,

the parties have appeared before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Phagwara and as per report dated 26.06.2021, submitted to this Court, both

the parties have got recorded their respective statements in Court. The

operative part of the reports received from learned Court below is as under:-

" In view of the statement of the parties, it is apparent on record that parties have compromised the matter voluntarily. It is also apparent on record that;

(1) In FIR No. 26, dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure P-1), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travels Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station Rawalpindi, District Kapurthala, there are two accused namely, Harmesh Kaur and Parshotam Singh.

(2) No accused has been declared proclaimed offender. (3) The compromise seems genuine, without any kind of coercion or undue influence and voluntary. (4) Accused persons are not involved in any other case. (5) In the present FIR there is only one complainant namely Tehal Singh."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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

01.04.2021 (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.

5. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for respondent

No.2, after going through the statements and the report received from learned

2 of 6

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 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

3 of 6

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.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of Ramgopal

4 of 6

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 petitioners 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.

11. Keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the

5 of 6