Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 434 (PNJ)

Ram Nath v. State of Haryana

2009-03-03

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.01.2002, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 26.08.2000 and the order of sentence dated 28.08.2000, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa, convicting the accused for the offences, punishable under Sections 294, 341 and 506 and awarding sentence to him, for various terms of imprisonment. 2. During the pendency of revision-petition, the parties have entered into a compromise. Sishpal, complainant, submitted his affidavit P-1, to the effect that he settled his dispute with the accused peacefully, after burying their hatchet. This affidavit, in the form of compromise, was duly signed by Harbans Kaur, his wife, the victim and Ram Nath, revision-petitioner. Thus, an application, under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, for placing on record, the affidavit, and acquitting the accused, was filed. In other words, vide application, under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner implicitly sought that the judgments of the Courts below be set aside/quashed. 3. The State counsel was directed to verify whether the parties have arrived at a compromise. He stated that, after verification, it was found that the parties had entered into a genuine compromise. He also submitted A-3 and A-4 (Affidavits of Shishpal and Ram Nath respectively) which have been taken on record. He, however, submitted that the offence punishable under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through record of the case, carefully. 5. It evident from Ex.P-1, affidavit that Harbans Kaur, victim and her husband Sishpal entered into compromise with Ram Nath, accused (now revision- petitioner). Ram Nath, accused (Now revision petitioner), vide affidavit (Annexure A-3) also stated that with the intervention of the respectables, the compromise had been arrived at, been had between the parties. It is further evident from this affidavit that after the compromise, no dispute subsisted between the parties. It is further evident that, whatever, the differences were between the parties, had been resolved. 6. It is further evident from this affidavit that after the compromise, no dispute subsisted between the parties. It is further evident that, whatever, the differences were between the parties, had been resolved. 6. Now the first question, that arises for consideration is, as to whether, the FIR, as also the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, and the judgment of the Appellate Court, in appeal, affirming the judgment of the trial Court, could be set-aside/quashed, in exercise of the power, under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, or not. It was held in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane v. State of Maharashtra, 2008(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 676, by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, that the power to compound, can be exercised, at the trial, appellate or revisional stage. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225, by a Full Bench of this Court. Under these circumstances, relying upon the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, it is held that the FIR including the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the appellate Court, can even be quashed/set aside, at this revisional stage, on the basis of compromise if the fats and circumstances, of particular case, so warrant. 7. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the inherent powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, can be invoked, to set-aside the judgments of conviction and the order of sentence, relating to the non- compoundable offences, if the parties enter into a genuine compromise, by amicable settlement of their disputes. In Kulwinder Singhs case (supra), while approving the minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005(2) Apex Criminal 424 : 2005(2) Law Herald 723 (P&H)(FB), a Bench of five Honble Judges, of this Court, concluded as under : "27. 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 under Section 482, of the Criminal Procedure Code 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." 28. In Mrs. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawheny v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawheny and others (1980) 1 SCC 63, Honble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the 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 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. 29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Criminal Procedure Code or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 30. 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 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 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 Criminal Procedure Code in the event of 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. 31. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Criminal Procedure Code, which can affect the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial case alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even if non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. 32. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial case alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even if non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. 32. The power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 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 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 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 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" 8. Compromise, in the modern society, is the sine-qua-non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J., the finest hour of Justice arrives propitiously, when the parties despite falling apart, bury the hatchet, and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. Inherent power of the Court, under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 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 the abuse of process of law and to secure the endes of justice, notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code Exercise of power, in a given situation, will depend on the facts of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation. The Court is also a vital, and an extra-ordinary effective instrument, to maintain and control social order. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation. The Court is also a vital, and an extra-ordinary effective 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 the society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singhs case (supra). Thus, the question formulated at the outset of paragraph 7, is answered, in the affirmative. 9. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it may be stated here, that the praties to the lis have buried their hatchet, though at a belated stage. If the compromise is accepted, and the proceedings are quashed, it will go a long way, to create better relations, between them, and remove bitterness, which perpetuated for a long time. Thus, it is a fit case, warranting the exercise of power, under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, to set-aside/quash conviction, and sentence, recorded by the Courts below. 10. Keeping in view the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, and applying the same, to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my considered opinion, once the matter has been compromised, by the parties, no useful purpose, shall be served by proceeding with the revision petition, on merits, as that would amount to sheer wastage of time of the Court; harassment to the parties; and abuse of the process of Court. Even otherwise, the compromise is neither abhorrent to lawful composition of the society, not would it promote savagery. 11. In view of the above discussion, the revision-petition is accepted. The judgment of conviction dated 26.08.2000, and the order of sentence, dated 28.08.2000, rendered by the trial Court, and the judgment dated 24.01.2002, affirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, by the Appellate Court, are set aside. The revision-petitioner shall stand acquitted of the charge framed against him. Since the revision-petitioner is on bail, he shall stand discharged of bail bonds. Petition allowed.