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

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. N.P.S.Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, A.A.G., Punjab. Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 11. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Prayer in the instant petition under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the Rapat No.14 dated 18.11.2006 under Sections 324/323/148/149 of Indian Penal Code in cross-case bearing FIR No.252 dated 17.11.2006 under Sections 447/323/148/149 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga as well as subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise dated 09.06.2010 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties. As per allegations in the FIR, on 17.11.2006, a quarrel took place between the petitioners' side and respondent Nos.2 to 12 regarding Crl. Misc. No.M 23559 of 2010 # 2# which FIR No.252 dated 17.11.2006, under Sections 447/323/148/149 of Indian Penal Code was lodged by petitioner No.1-Kikkar Singh against respondents No.2 to 12.

Thereafter, on 18.11.2006, on the statement of respondent No.2-Jaswinder Singh, the aforesaid Rapat was lodged against the petitioners. Upon notice of motion parties appeared and were directed to approach the learned trial Court by making appropriate application for getting their statements recorded in terms of the compromise and who shall submit its report regarding the genuineness of the compromise. Report (Mark-A) in the shape of letter dated 14.10.2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga has been received wherein it is stated that the parties appeared before that court and suffered statements recorded separately in terms of the compromise thereby stating that the matter between the parties has been compromised and complainant-Jaswinder Singh has no objection if the aforesaid cross- case in case FIR No.252 dated 17.11.2006 and all consequential proceedings are quashed against the petitioners.

From the report submitted it is evident that the dispute between the petitioners-accused and the complainant party has been amicably resolved by entering into compromise wherein the complainant-Jaswinder Singh has stated that he has no objection if the Rapat No.14 dated 18.11.2006 under Sections 324/323/148/149 of Indian Penal Code in cross-case bearing FIR No.252 dated 17.11.2006 under Sections 447/323/148/149 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners- accused is quashed. Learned State Counsel on instructions from HC Jarnail Singh Crl. Misc. No.M 23559 of 2010 # 3# submits that case is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence. He, however, is unable to oppose the prayer in view of the compromise, where the parties are not willing to support the prosecution case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675 B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has also held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:-

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.

Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T. 2008(9) S.C. 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal Crl.

Misc. No.M 23559 of 2010 # 4# proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise. Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:-

We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.

Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Rapat No.14 dated 18.11.2006 under Sections 324/323/148/149 of Indian Penal Code in cross-case bearing FIR No.252 dated 17.11.2006 under Sections 447/323/148/149 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga as well as the subsequent proceedings arising Crl. Misc. No.M 23559 of 2010 # 5# therefrom are quashed against the petitioners. 29th November, 2010 Gagan ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE