Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 925 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2008-04-25

ARVIND KUMAR

body2008
Judgment Arvind Kumar, J. 1. The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 121 dated 14.7.2007, got registered by respondent No. 2 against them under Sections 376, 511, 452, 323, 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Tarantaran, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) having entered between them. 2. The impugned FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 with the allegations that on 14.7.2007, both the petitioners attempted to commit rape with her daughter Gurmeet Kaur (respondent No. 3) in the house of her friend Kanta when she was alone. It has been contended that the parties have settled the dispute amicably with the intervention of respectable and the complainant as well as prosecutrix Gurmeet Kaur will not pursue the aforesaid case any more. Compromise (Annexure P-2) has been placed on record containing the recitals of the compromise having been entered between the parties as well as the factum of the complainant as well as prosecutrix being not interested to pursue the case against the petitioners. 3. Upon notice of motion, complainant respondent No. 2 and prosecutrix respondent No. 3 i.e. Paramjit Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur respectively have filed their joint reply wherein they have authenticated the compromise and have also stated that they have no objection in the quashing of the impugned FIR against the petitioners. 4. By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Honble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 5. In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in following words : "The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion." The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh & Ors. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in following words : "The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion." The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s) has held as under : "28. 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 under Section 482 of the 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 under Section 482 of the 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 a litigation. 29. 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 under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice." 6. In the instant case, as emerges from record, the parties have mutually settled their dispute and the complainant and the prosecutrix, the star witness of the prosecution has since decided to withdraw from the prosecution, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution is nothing but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court. Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having arrived at between the parties, it is a fit case where interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings thereto; are quashed.