Gurwinder Singh @ Neela and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Daya chaudhary, J.—The instant petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners namely Gurwinder Singh @ Neela and Gurinder Kaur for quashing of FIR No. 346 dated 18.12.2007 registered under Sections 323, 363, 366 and 120B IPC at Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana (Annexure P1), on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3), annexed with the petition.

During the pendency of the petition, a compromise was effected between the parties, which are placed on record as Annexure P-3, wherein it has been mentioned that with the intervention of the respectable persons from both the sides, the parties have compromised the matter. It has also been mentioned that the said compromise has been effected without any pressure or compulsion and the terms and conditions thereof shall be abided by both the parties. The compromise has been signed by both the parties as well as other members. In the said compromise, the complainant has admitted the factum of compromise, effected between the parties. The complainant, who is present in the Court, has been identified by her Counsel and on the asking of the Court, she has stated that she has no objection in quashing the FIR in question.

Apart from this, an affidavit has been filed in Court by Inder Kaur, complainant, wherein she has also stated that she has no objection in quashing the FIR in question.

Learned Counsel for both the parties have also stated in the Court that no other case is pending against the parties.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. The complainant herself does not want to pursue these proceedings and it shall be merely a formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court as complainant would not support the case of prosecution in view of compromise between the parties. It would be in the interest of the parties as well as in the large interest of the society, peace and harmony and in order to save both the families from avoidable litigation that the compromise arrived at between them is accepted by this Court.

It has been observed by Hon''ble the Apex Court in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and Others, that "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. Relying on the views adopted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Cri) 1052 that compounding of offence which are not compoundable u/s 320(9) Code of Criminal Procedure, offence non-compoundable but parties entering into compromise, High Court has the power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

While 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 (3) RCR (Cri) 426 : 2005 (2) AC 424 : 2005 (2) Law Herald 723 (P&H) (FB), opined as under:

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 u/s 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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.

No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) Code of Criminal Procedure or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure

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 u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 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.

The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Code of Criminal Procedure which can affect the inherent power ofd this Court u/s 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 u/s 320 Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

The power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercise Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined 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 u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 u/s 320 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 list 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 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.

Since the dispute has been compromised between the parties and the complainant has no objection in quashing the FIR in question, the instant petition, u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, is accepted. FIR No. 346 dated 18.12.2007 registered under Sections 323, 363, 366 and 120B IPC at Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana (Annexure P1) as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua Petitioners namely Gurwinder Singh @ Neela and Gurinder Kaur, are quashed.