Manohar Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. K.S.Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab Mr. Dheerajpreet Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 5-complainants ARVIND KUMAR, J. *** Affidavits of Sukhbir Singh, Tejinder Pal Singh, Surjit Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, filed in Court, are taken on record. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought for quashing of FIR No.111 dated 28.11.2003 registered against them under Sections 326/323/324/148/149 IPC, Police Station Sarai Amant Khan, District Amritsar, and all other consequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise having been entered between the parties. The impugned FIR has been registered on the statement made by respondent No.2 Sukhbir Singh to the effect that the petitioners had caused them grievous injuries. Complainant-respondents No. 2 to 5, namely, Sukhbir Singh, Tejinderpal Singh @ Kala, Sukhwinder Singh and Surjit Singh, have filed their respective affidavits stating that the matter has been compromised by them with the petitioners vide Annexure P-3 and have thus, stated that they have no objection to the quashing of the cross-version recorded vide the afore-stated FIR and subsequent proceedings.

Their counsel has authenticated the compromise, Annexure P-3. By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any Crl. Misc. No. 17622-M of 2008 -2- such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in 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 Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh & Ors.

Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non- compoundable offence(s) has held as under:- “28. 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 Crl. Misc. No. 17622-M of 2008 -3- 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.

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.” Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.111 dated

28.11.2003 registered against the petitioners under Sections 326/323/324/148/149 IPC, Police Station Sarai Amant Khan, District Amritsar, and all other consequent proceedings therein are quashed. December 18, 2008 JS (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE