Criminal Misc. No. M-17296 of 2009 v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent no. 1. Mr. Amit Punj, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 214 dated

31.7.2003, registered at Police Station Udyaog Vihar, Gurgaon, under Sections 406, 498-A, 34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been compromised with the intervention of the well-wishers and and petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce has been filed before the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, which is now fixed for 25.7.2009. Reliance has been placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225. Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 1 appeared before the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, on 13.6.2009 and made a joint statement which has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. As per the statement, petitioner no.1 agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- towards permanent alimony as full and final settlement to respondent no. 2. On that day, he paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- vide cheque no. 212394 dated 13.6.2009 drawn on ICICI Bank, Jaipur and the balance amount i.e. Rs. 65,00,000/- was to be paid before this Court, which he has paid today in the court vide cheque bearing no. 212395 dated 16.7.2009 drawn on ICICI Bank, Jaipur. Respondent no. 1 who is present in court in person has also made a statement to this effect in this court. She stated that as per the settlement, she has received cheuqe for a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/- today and earlier she had Criminal Misc. No. M-17296 of 2009 (2) received cheque amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- towards her full and final settlement. For completion of divorce proceedings, she will appear before the court below on

25.7.2009. She has no objection in case FIR in question is quashed. Dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise, a Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005 (2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723, opined as under:- “27. 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”.

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 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, Criminal Misc. No. M-17296 of 2009 (3) 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 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.” Criminal Misc. No. M-17296 of 2009 (4) 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-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. 214 dated

31.7.2003, registered at Police Station Udyaog Vihar, Gurgaon, under Sections 406, 498-A, 34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

16.7.2009 vs. ( Rajesh Bindal) Judge