Parshotam Lal & Ors vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir

Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioners seek quashing of the Police Challan bearing No.323/2016 dated 11.12.2016 arising out of FIR No.348/2016 of police station Domana, Jammu, for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 342 & 109 RPC filed by the respondent against petitioner Nos.1 to 4, pending in the Court of learned Sub Judge (City Magistrate) Jammu as Criminal File No.156/Challan along-with all proceedings arising out of the said police challan, on the ground of compromise arrived at between petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and petitioner No.5.

It is pertinent to mention here that on 11.02.2019 this Court after considering the fact of petitioner Nos.1 & 5 are living together as husband and wife and they have also annexed compromise deed with the instant petition, had directed the Registrar Judicial of this Court to record the statements of the petitioners and their counsel with regard to authenticity of compromise deed.

Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of the petitioners and their counsel. The same are placed on record, which read as under:-

Statement of Parshotam Lal (petitioner no.1) , Age : 38 years ; S/o Sh.Tulsi Ram, R/o K.C.Door Muthi, Jammu on oath today i.e. 14.02.2019

Stated that I have executed a deed of compromise dated 19.01.2019 with petitioner no.5 namely Smt. Santosh Devi Bhagat and have settled all disputes and issues in terms of afore said compromise deed with her. As such, I am living with respondent no.5. As such, I pray the Hon'ble Court to allow the petition and quash the impugned Challan bearing no.323/2016 pending in the Court of Learned Sub Judge (City Magistrate) against me. I identify my signature on each page of the compromise deed annexed with the petition and contents thereof are true and correct.

Statement of Shakuntula Devi (petitioner no.2) , Age : 60 years ; W/o Sh.Tulsi Ram, R/o K.C.Door Muthi, Jammu on oath today i.e. 14.02.2019

Stated that my son-petitioner no.1 has executed a deed of compromise dated 19.01.2019 with petitioner no.5 namely Smt. Santosh Devi Bhagat (daughter-in-law) and have settled all disputes and issues in terms of afore said compromise deed with her. Both of them are living together under one roof for the past four months. As such, I pray the

Hon'ble Court to allow the petition and quash the impugned Challan bearing no.323/2016 pending in the Court of Learned Sub Judge (City Magistrate) against me.

Statement of Ranjeet Kumar (petitioner no.3) , Age : 27 years ; S/o Sh.Tulsi Ram, R/o K.C.Door Muthi, Jammu on oath today i.e. 14.02.2019

Stated that my brother-petitioner no.1 has executed a deed of compromise dated 19.01.2019 with petitioner no.5 namely Smt. Santosh Devi Bhagat (my sister-in-law) and have settled all disputes and issues in terms of afore said compromise deed with her. Both of them are living together under one roof for the past four months. As such, I pray the Hon'ble Court to allow the petition and quash the impugned Challan bearing no.323/2016 pending in the Court of Learned Sub Judge (City Magistrate) against me.

Statement of Sanjay Kumar (petitioner no.4) , Age : 32 years ; S/o Sh.Tulsi Ram, R/o K.C.Door Muthi, Jammu on oath today i.e. 14.02.2019

Stated that my brother-petitioner no.1 has executed a deed of compromise dated 19.01.2019 with petitioner no.5 namely Smt. Santosh Devi Bhagat (my sister-in-law) and have settled all disputes and issues in terms of afore said compromise deed with her. Both of them are living together under one roof for the past four months. As such, I pray the Hon'ble Court to allow the petition and quash the impugned Challan bearing no.323/2016 pending in the Court of Learned Sub Judge (City Magistrate) against me.

Statement of Santosh Devi Bhagat (petitioner no.5) , Age : 34 years ; W/o Sh.Parshotam Lal, R/o K.C.Door Muthi, Jammu on oath today i.e. 14.02.2019

Stated that I have executed a deed of compromise dated 19.01.2019 with my husband, petitioner no.1 namely Parshotam Lal and have settled all disputes and issues in terms of afore said compromise deed with her. Both of us are living together under one roof for the past four months. As such, I do not want to press the impugned Challan bearing no.323/2016 pending in the Court of Learned Sub Judge (City Magistrate) against the petitioner nos.1 to 4 and has no objection if the same is quashed. I further pray the Hon'ble Court that the afore said petition may be allowed in favour of petitioner no.1 to 4. I identify my signature on each page of the compromise deed annexed with the petition and contents thereof are true and correct.

Statement of Sh.Navneet Dubey, Advocate for the petitioners on oath today i.e. 14.02.2019

Stated that I do hereby identify the all the petitioners who have deposed their statements before Registrar Judicial in my presence which are true and correct to my knowledge.

From bare perusal of the statements placed on record, it is evident that parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled their differences.

Relevant extract of the compromise deed is reproduced as under:-

"That on account of the above outside court compromise and settlement dated 19.01.2019 that parties to this deed do not want to press any litigation pending against each other and their relative. The Smt. Santosh Devi Bhagat hereby agree to withdraw and not press the criminal case arising out of FIR No.348/2016 and police challan bearing No.323/2016 of Police Station Domana, Jammu, for commission of an offence defined u/s 498-A, 323, 342 & 109 of the RPC, which is pending in the court of learned Sub Judge (City Magistrate Jammu as inthe shape of criminal file No.156/Challan and against Parshotam Lal and his relatives. And for the said purpose is ready to approach the Hon‟ble High Court also on following terms and conditions.

That Parshotam Lal shall accommodate and cohabit with Santosh Devi Bhagat in the separate accommodation from the house of Tulsi Ram, father of Parshotam Lal, and the rent of the said accommodation shall be paid by Parshotam Lal only.

That Parshotam Lal shall pay half of his monthly salary to Smt. Santosh Devi every month.

That Parshotam Lal and Santosh Devi Bhagat shall live with each other in perfect harmony and with lot of love and affection. Both of them shall not abuse each other and shall not use violence in any manner.

That no child has been born out of the wed lock above mentioned but if any child is born then the said child will have full share in the property of both the parties to this deed and from their alos in accordance with law. "

In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, it is held as under:-

The question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code.

Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, „nothing in this Code‟ which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.

In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorized, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court underSection 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection.

It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided.

Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.

55 B.S. Joshi1, (2003) 4 SCC 675 Nikhil Merchant (2008) 9 SCC 677

Manoj Sharma (2008) 16 SCC 1 and Shiji alias Pappu (2011) 10 SCC 705 do illustrate the principle that High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S. Joshi1, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji alias Pappu, this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although ultimate consequence may be same viz., acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment.

Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, I am of considered opinion that future trial is mere wastage of time of courts. As the parties have compromised, there would be no chance of conviction of any accused in the case. Offences for which criminal prosecution has been launched are not heinous one.

Consequently, this petition is allowed and Police Challan bearing No.323/2016 dated 11.12.2016 arising out of FIR No.348/2016 of Police Station Domana, Jammu, for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 342 & 109 RPC, filed by the respondent against petitioner Nos.1 to 4, pending in the Court of learned Sub Judge (City Magistrate) Jammu as Criminal File No.156/Challan along-with all proceedings arising out of the said police challan, are quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the petitioners.

Copy of this order be sent to Court below for compliance.