Sapna and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The instant petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners namely Sapna, Surinder Kumar, Suneha, Jyoti and Pardeep Kumar, for quashing of FIR No. 163 dated 09.09.2006 registered under Sections 420, 406, and 120B IPC at Police Station City Ferozepur, Distt. Ferozepur (Annexure P-1), on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), annexed with the petition. As per the allegations in the FIR, the accused petitioners demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- for sending son of the complainant to America. All documents like passport size photo and attested copies of certificates were given to the accused persons. But still the son of the complainant was not sent abroad. As per the allegations, cheque of the amount in dispute was paid to the complainant, but the same could not be encashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties was pertaining to transaction and on the basis of allegations mentioned in the complaint, the said FIR was registered. Subsequently, dispute between the parties was settled by way of compromise. The compromise (Annexure P-2) has been signed by both the parties as well as other respectables and relations of the parties.

After issuing notice of motion in the case, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording their statements with regard to compromise. The statements of the parties were recorded by the trial Court and a report in this regard has been sent, which is on record along with the statements of the parties. It has been mentioned in the statements that the said compromise has been effected voluntarily without any pressure or coercion and now they have no grouse against each other. The compromise has been signed by both the parties. The complainant has also specifically stated that he has no objection in quashing of the FIR in question and other proceedings arising therefrom.

After hearing 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 himself 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 societal, 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) Cr. P.C., offence non-compoundable but parties entering into compromise, High Court has the power u/s 482 Cr. P.C. 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 (Criminal) 426 : 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 424 : 2005 (2) LH 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 Cr.P.C. 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) Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power u/s 438 Cr. P.C.

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, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of 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 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 Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

The power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 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 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 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 vital and an extraordinary 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.

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. 163 dated 09.09.2006 registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC at Police Station City Ferozepur, Distt. Ferozepur (Annexure P-1), as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners namely Sapna, Surinder Kumar, Suneha, Jyoti and Pardeep Kumar, are hereby quashed.