Prit Pal Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner, namely, Prit Pal Singh for quashing of F.I.R. No. 197 dated 18.09.2010 registered under Sections 418, 419, 420, 380 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. The said FIR was registered against two persons i.e. the present petitioner and co-accused Ramanpuri. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled with the intervention of friends, elders and respectables. As per directions issued by this Court on 22.04.2013, the statements of the parties were recorded before the trial Court, wherein, it has been mentioned that a compromise has been effected between the parties and the complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom. Petitioner Prit Pal Singh as well as complainant-K.R. Bali have specifically stated in their statements that keeping in view the peace and harmony, the dispute between them has been settled. Complainant-K.R. Bali has also stated that he has no objection in case the FIR as well as other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua petitioner-Prit Pal Singh. A report has been sent by the trial Court stating that the compromise is without any coercion and pressure from the side of either party.

Learned counsel also submits that co-accused of the petitioner has filed Criminal Misc. No. M-18093 of 2011, wherein, the FIR qua him has already been quashed.

In Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , the Larger Bench of our own High Court has held that the High Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings eve in non-compoundable offences, notwithstanding the bar u/s 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to prevent abuse of the process any Court or to secure the ends of justice. In Kulwinder Singh''s case, the Larger Bench has also observed:-

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 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 u/s 482 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.

The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, emphasized in para No. 6 as follows:-

We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, held as under:-

In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, , this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal''s case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution which invoking such powers.

In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, , it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing u/s 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.

Since the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise, the complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR and the object of the compromise is to maintain peace and harmony not only between the parties but also in the society, and the view taken in Kulwinder Singh and others case (supra), I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. The complainant does not want to pursue these proceedings and it shall merely be a formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court as the complainant would not support the case of prosecution in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No. 197 dated 18.09.2010 registered under Sections 418, 419, 420, 380 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner namely Prit Pal Singh are quashed.