Karnail Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)

This judgment will dispose of two petitions bearing No. M2671 of 2011 and M7276 of 2011, as the same have arisen out of one and the same incident.

Petitioners namely, Karnail Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur, Dalbir Kaur, Kashmair Kaur alias Bholi, Joginder Singh and Amarjeet Singh have filed the present petition for quashing of FIRNo. 52 dated 27.2.2004 under sections 326/324/1487 149 IPC registered at Police Station Jandiala,on the basis of compromise annexed as Annexure P2 with the petition, whereas Crl.M.No. M7276 of 2011, has been filed by Natha Singh, Sonu, S. Joginder Singh, Smt. Satbir Kaur, Smt. NirmalKaur and S. Avtar Singh for quashing of complaint No. 567/05 dated 29.10.2005 and all subsequent proceedings.

It is not in dispute that both the cases have arisen out of the same incident between the same parties. Keeping in view the statements made before this Court and noticing the fact that the parties have compromised this Court directed the parties to record their statements before the trial Court in support of their compromise. A report has been received from the Court of Ms. Hargurjit Kaur, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, which reads thus :

"With reference to Criminal Misc. No. M2671 of 2011 dated 28.1.2011, on the subject cited above, I have the honour to submit that complainant appeared in the court of undersigned and filed an application for recording their statements. It is further submitted that statement complainant Jagwinder Singh, was recorded in which he deposed that he has compromised with the accused without any pressure and coercion in any manner and even exhibited the compromise as Ex.C 1 (original compromise has been filed in the cords case titled as Karnail Singh v. Natha Singh, regarding which criminal Misc. No. 7276/2011 is pending in Hon''ble Court of Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri, Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court). Further statement of Gurvinder Singh, injured is also recorded in which he stated that he has compromised the matter with the accused without any pressure or coercion in any manner and copy of compromise is Ex.C1. He further deposed that the accused belong to his village. He further deposed that the compromise which bears his signatures be accepted. Both, the complainant as well as Gurvinder Singh was identified by counsel Sh. J.P.Verma, Advocate.

Now the case is pending for 21.3.2011, for awaiting the orders from Hon''ble High. My report is submitted foryour information and necessary action, please".

The aforesaid report is also supported by compromise Ex.C 1 placed on record of the trial Court and the statements of Jagwinder Singh and Gurvinder Singh. Both the counsel appearing on behalf of their respective parties have again verified the fact the parties to the dispute in the afore said FIR as well as the complaint case have compromised.

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

"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 "finesh hour of justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlordtenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its power 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.

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 4821 Further, the same cannot e invited to matrimonial cases alone and the ''Court has the wide power to quash the " proceedings even in noncompoundable 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.

The power under Section 482 of the r Cr. P C. is to be exercised ExDebitia 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 a vital and an extraordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and everlasting 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 adborrent to lawful composition of the society of would promote savagery."

Thus, keeping in view the facts of case and the law laid down by this Court as aforesaid, the FIR in question and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom as well as the complaint are quashed.