Sukhdev Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

CRM No. 31205 of 2012

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Original affidavits with photographs of the petitioners as well as of respondent No. 2-complainant are permitted to be placed on record as Annexures-P-4 to P-9. Instant criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. CRM No. M-9871 of 2012

The petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''Cr.P.C.'') invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of FIR No. 243, dated 12.12.2007 under Sections 452/323/324/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short), registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 10.3.2012 (Annexure-P-1).

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2-complainant have filed their respective affidavits with photographs affixed thereon, so as to establish their identity. The petitioners as well as respondent No. 2-complainant are present in Court and identified by their respective learned counsel.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 2-complainant are ad idem that the parties have arrived at out of Court settlement by way of compromise in the form of affidavit of respondent No. 2-complainant (Annexure-P-1). Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 2-complainant submit that the impugned FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed, in the interest of justice.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercising the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 243, dated 12.12.2007 under Sections 452/323/324/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short), registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, so as to secure the ends of justice. The parties have decided to bury the hatchet and in view thereof, continuation of the prosecution any further would serve no purpose. It will amount to wastage of valuable time of the Court and shall also result in abuse of process of law because no chance of conviction is left.

The above said view taken by this Court finds support from the recent judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Shiji @ Pappu and others versus Radhika and another, 2012 (1) RCR (criminal) 9 and also from the larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another reported as 2007 (3) RCR (criminal) 1052. The relevant observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in para 13 of the judgment in Shiji''s case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:

It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable u/s 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable u/s 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear Criminal Misc. No. M-9871 of 2012 (O/M) -4-view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power u/s 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.

Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is established on record that the parties have arrived at a mutual compromise without any pressure from any side. The parties are present in Court. On the pointed question put by the Court to respondent No. 2-complainant Bhupinder Singh @ Bhushan son of Tarsem Singh, he stated that he has compromised the matter with the petitioners and he does not intend to pursue the impugned FIR against the petitioners. He further stated that he has no objection, if the said FIR is ordered to be quashed. Thus, this Court is satisfied that the parties have arrived at a genuine compromise without any pressure, leaving no scope of doubt that the continuation of criminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility.

In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to prevent the abuse of process of law, FIR No. 243, dated 12.12.2007 under Sections Criminal Misc. No. M-9871 of 2012 (O/M) -5-452/323/324/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short), registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed.

Resultantly, the instant petition stands allowed.