Crl. Misc. No.M- 7171 of 2010 v. State of Haryana

3. Smt. Reshma w/o Balwan r/o village Anchera Khurd, Tehsil Safidon District Jind. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER ........ Respondents Present:- Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondent nos.1 -State. Mr. Anil Kumar Malik, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. Sham Sunder, J. -- This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing FIR No.321 dated 30.08.2008, under Sections 148,323, 325 and 506 read with Section 149 of Crl. Misc. No.M- 7171 of 2010 --2-- the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Safidon and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, has been filed by the petitioners.

2. The Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have amicably settled the matter, on the basis of mutual compromise,(Annexure P-1). He has further submitted that after the said compromise, no dispute subsists between the parties. He has further submitted that, with a view to prevent the abuse of process of Court, and in the interest of justice, the FIR aforesaid, be quashed. He also placed reliance on Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225, a case decided by a Full Bench of this Court.

3. The Counsel for respondent nos.1, 2 & 3, did not dispute the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners. They also reiterated that the parties have settled the matter amicably, on the basis of mutual compromise,aforesaid. They further submitted that, if on the basis of mutual compromise, referred to above, the FIR is quashed, it would prevent the abuse of process of Court; harassment to the parties, and create better relations, between them.

4. In Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), while approving the minority view in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana 2005(2) Law Herald (P&H)(FB) 723, a Bench of five Hon'ble Judges, of this Court, concluded as under : Crl. Misc. No.M- 7171 of 2010 --3-- “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 Vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others (1980) 1 SCC 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 Crl. Misc. No.M- 7171 of 2010 --4-- 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 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 powers 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 Crl. Misc. No.M- 7171 of 2010 --5-- parameters 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.”

5. Keeping in view the ratio of law, laid down, in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my considered opinion, once the matter has been compromised, by the parties, no useful purpose, shall be served by proceeding with the prosecution, as that would amount to sheer wastage of the time of the Court; harassment to the parties, and abuse of the process of Court. Even otherwise, the compromise is neither abhorrent to lawful composition of the society, nor would it promote savagery. Crl. Misc. No.M- 7171 of 2010 --6--

6. For the reasons recorded above, the instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, is accepted. FIR No.321 dated 30.08.2008, under Sections 148,323, 325 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Safidon and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, on the basis of mutual compromise , (Annexure P-1), are quashed, qua the petitioners.

01.04.2010 dinesh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE