Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 10 docs - [View All]
Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Penal Code
Section 320 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code

User Queries
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudhir Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 31 August, 2012
 Criminal Misc. No. M-5065 of 2012                                 1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                            Criminal Misc. No. M-5065 of 2012(O&M)
                            Date of Decision: 31.8.2012

Sudhir Kumar and others


                                               .....Petitioners.

                         Versus



State of Haryana and others

                                               .....Respondents.

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

Present:    Mr. K.S.Jetley, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate
            for respondent No.4.

                   ***

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):

The petitioners have approached this Court, by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR No. 294 dated 23.9.2009, under Sections 498-A, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Ambala City and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3).

Notice of motion was issued.

In compliance of the order dated 25.7.2012 passed by this Criminal Misc. No. M-5065 of 2012 2 Court, the parties got their statements recorded before the learned trial court. Consequently, report sent by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala, has been received which is available on record of the case, along with the statements of the parties. Learned Magistrate has reported that the parties have made their statements voluntarily and without any pressure. The compromise arrived at between the parties has been found to be a genuine one.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have decided to bury the hatchet and are living peacefully. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that continuation of 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 jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice. I say so because the parties have arrived at an out of Court settlement by way of compromise (Annexure P-3). The compromise is without any pressure and a genuine one. In such a situation, continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law.

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-

"We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a Criminal Misc. No. M-5065 of 2012 3 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 utilised 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."

The view taken by this Court also 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 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 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 under Section 320

                 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court         to

                 refuse      exercise of its power under Section

482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of Criminal Misc. No. M-5065 of 2012 4 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 under Section 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 under Section 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           under         Section      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         under        Section        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 Criminal Misc. No. M-5065 of 2012 5 its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear 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 under Section 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 under Section 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, this Court has satisfied itself that the compromise arrived at between the parties is a genuine one. They have got their statements recorded voluntarily before the learned trial court. In view of the genuine compromise arrived at between the parties and also in view of the report received Criminal Misc. No. M-5065 of 2012 6 from the learned trial court, I have no hesitation to conclude that the continuation of the prosecution any further would be nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law. It would result in wastage of valuable time of the Court because no chance of conviction is left.

In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 294 dated 23.9.2009, under Sections 498-A, 406, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Ambala City, including the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed only qua the petitioners namely, Sudhir Kumar, Ved Parkash, Luxmi Devi-petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

Instant petition stands allowed.

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 31.8.2012 AK Sharma