Parminder Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Rajesh Bindal, J.—Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 153 dated 22.11.2010, registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

The aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of Respondent No. 2-Mrs. Karmdeep Kaur daughter of Udaivir Singh against the Petitioners for causing harassment, beating and demand of dowry. Now the parties have compromised the matter and sought quashing of the FIR on that basis.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the dispute between the parties has been compromised with the intervention of the well-wishers and keeping in view that peace and harmony is maintained. Compromise has been placed on record as Annexure P-2, according to which the parties have settled their disputes. It was further submitted since the parties have compromised the matter, the FIR in question deserves to be quashed.

This Court, vide order dated 23.5.2011, directed the parties to appear before the learned court below and get their statements recorded. The learned court below was directed to send a report with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties. In the report, learned court below has stated that a valid compromise has been effected between the parties. The complainant party does not want to take any action against the accused person. It is genuine one as the same has been entered into voluntarily with free will of the complainant without any coercion or undue influence or pressure of any kind. Both the parties have withdrawn the cases filed by them against each other. No other case is pending against either of the parties.

Report sent by the learned court below perused. It is clear therefrom that the Petitioners and the complainant party have resolved their differences by a bonafide compromise free from any fraud, coercion or undue influence. A compromise would help the parties to live their lives, without it will or rancor and contribute to harmony and peace in the community. 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 v. State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225 while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005 (2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723, 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".

In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and Others, , 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.

No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power u/s 482 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

The power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 u/s 482 of the 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 endeavor 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 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. 153 dated 22.11.2010, registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.