7.2008 Rajinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 250 dated 10.5.2008 registered under Sections 420, 376, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station, City Jind, District Jind and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that the parties have reached amicable settlement by way of compromise. Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 and has identified respondent no. 2 Darshana Devi w/o Late Sh.Raj Kumar, who is also present in Court. It is further stated by the counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of compromise, the dispute has been settled once for all. The conditions of compromise as stated therein are reproduced as under:- That on the instance of respectable and brotherhood of the parties, a compromise has been effected between the First Party and Second Party. It has been resolved that both the parties shall withdraw the criminal cases, filed by them. First party i.e. Smt. Darshna Devi has filed an FIR No. 250 dated 10.5.2008, u/s 420, 376, 506, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Jind, against the Second party. The said FIR has been Crl. Misc. No. 17249-M of 2008 2 lodged because of the misunderstanding and lack of communication between both the parties and now the matter has been resolved with the timely intervention of the respectable of both the parties. Therefore, the first party has no objection if the above said FIR be quashed. The first party will not file any other case against the second party regarding this matter. That the second party has filed a Crl. Misc. No. 12781-M of 2008 titled as Smt. Giano Devi vs. State of Haryana and others. The Second undertakes to withdraw the said petition, because of the above-mentioned compromise. The second party will not file any other case against the first party. That this compromise has been affected today 10th July, 2008, in the presence of respectable of both the parties and both the parties and their LRs, shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise. This compromise has been effected voluntarily by both the parties without any fear or pressure from any side.” The Court had categorically asked the complainant-respondent no.2, who is present in the Court, about the compromise to which she has stated that she has entered into compromise without any coercion or undue influence. In view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and ultimately the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution the pendency of the case shall be an exercise in futility. Moreover, a Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225 has authoritatively held that even non-compoundable offences can also be settled by way of compromise. In the aforesaid case, it was opined as under:- “27. To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be Crl. Misc. No. 17249-M of 2008 3 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”.

28. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63, 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.” 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.

29. 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.

30. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non Crl. Misc. No. 17249-M of 2008 4 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.

31. 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.

32. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is to be Crl. Misc. No. 17249-M of 2008 5 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 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.” Compromise in modern society is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J., the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. Inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not limited to matrimonial cases alone. The Court has wide powers to quash the proceedings even in non- Crl. Misc. No. 17249-M of 2008 6 compoundable offences in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Exercise of power in a given situation will depend on facts of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation but it is a vital and extra-ordinary instrument to maintain and control social order. Resolution of dispute by way of compromise between two warring groups should be encouraged unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, FIR No. 250 dated 10.5.2008 registered under Sections 420, 376, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station, City Jind, District Jind and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. July 21, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge