Shishpal and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Present petition has been filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 142 dated 11.4.2011, registered at Police Station Sadar Karnal, District Karnal, under Sections 323, 324, 506, 34 IPC.

Counsel for the State on instructions from HC Himmat Singh, P.S. Sadar Karnal, has stated that offence u/s 326 IPC was added later, on 26.4.2011.

In the present case, quashing has been sought on the basis of a compromise, Annexure P-2, dated 8.5.2011. In his statement, the complainant - Respondent No. 2 stated that they are three brothers and engaged in agriculture. Their land adjoins the land of accused Shish Pal son of Dharam Singh and they exchanged that chunk of land with said Shish Pal. A dispute regarding the exchange of land arose and panchayat was convened on 10.4.2011 wherein an altercation took place in which the three brothers of the complainant were on one side and Shish Pal and his two brothers on the other side. On the same day at about 11/11.15 a.m., after attending the panchayat when the complainant along with his brothers came to the street, accused left the panchayat after giving abuses. After some time, Bijender armed with gandasi and Shish Pal and Rinku having daratis in their hands came and caused injuries to Kuldip Singh.

Kuldip Singh - complainant is present in Court. He has been identified by his Counsel, Shri Chander Shekhar Sharma. HC Himmat Singh, who has come to assist the State Counsel, has also identified Kuldip Singh.

Counsel for the complainant has filed affidavit of Kuldip Singh wherein it stated that with the intervention of the respectables and common relatives, they have effected compromise and the parties intend to bury their hatchet and promote ever-lasting peace and amity. Counsel for the complainant has further stated that he does not intend to pursue the present FIR and the same be quashed.

A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2007 (3) RCR (Cri) 1052 has held under as under:

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 of the 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 of the 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 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

30 The power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 para-meters 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 of the 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 a 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.

The present petition is, therefore, accepted and the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.