Pardeep alias Raju vs State of Haryana and Others

Daya Chaudhary, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C on behalf of Petitioner - Pardeep alias Raju for quashing of FIR No. 443 dated 25.5.2004 registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC at Police Station NIT, Faridabad on the basis of compromise.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 have solemnised marriage on 28.6.2005 contrary to the wishes of parents of Respondent No. 3. Out of this wedlock, a female child was born and now the Petitioners are living happy married life. The statement of Respondent No. 3 u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded before the Magistrate.

Learned Counsel for the State also does not controvert the submission made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Reply has already been filed on behalf of the State, which is on record.

Vide order dated 6.1.2011, the parties were directed to make a statement before the trial Court. In compliance of that order, statement of the parties were recorded. A report in this regard has been submitted wherein it has been mentioned by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge that statements of the parties were recorded and Petitioner No. 1 has solemnised marriage with Respondent No. 3 and now they are having daughter who is of four years. Today, Respondent No. 3-complainant along with her child is present in the Court and she has stated that a compromise has been effected between the parties and she has no objection in quashing of the FIR.

After hearing the 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 society, 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) RCR 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 426 : 2005(2) AC 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 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

No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) Code of Criminal Procedure 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 behavior. It is the soul of justice and if the power u/s 482 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 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 ofd 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 Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercise 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 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 Endeavour 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 behavior. 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 list 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).

For the reasons recorded above and having regard to the principles laid sown by the Five -Judges Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh''s case (supra), this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 443 dated 25.5.2004 registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC at Police Station NIT, Faridabad as well as all subsequent proceedings arising there from are quashed.