Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 334 (PNJ)

Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-02-24

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) - This judgment will dispose of two petitions bearing No. M-2671 of 2011 and M-7276 of 2011, as the same have arisen out of one and the same incident. 2. Petitioners namely, Karnail Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur, Dalbir Kaur, Kashmair Kaur alias Bholi, Joginder Singh and Amarjeet Singh have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 52 dated 27.2.2004 under sections 326/324/148/ 149 Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Jandiala,on the basis of compromise annexed as Annexure P2 with the petition, whereas Crl.M.No. M-7276 of 2011, has been filed by Natha Singh, Sonu, S. Joginder Singh, Smt. Satbir Kaur, Smt. NirmalKaur and S. Avtar Singh for quashing of complaint No. 567/05 dated 29.10.2005 and all subsequent proceedings. 3. It is not in dispute that both the cases have arisen out of the same incident between the same parties. Keeping in view the statements made before this Court and noticing the fact that the parties have compromised this Court directed the parties to record their statements before the trial Court in support of their compromise. A report has been received from the Court of Ms. Hargurjit Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, which reads thus :- "With reference to Criminal Misc. No. M-2671 of 2011 dated 28.1.2011, on the subject cited above, I have the honour to submit that complainant appeared in the court of undersigned and filed an application for recording their statements. It is further submitted that statement complainant Jagwinder Singh, was recorded in which he deposed that he has compromised with the accused without any pressure and coercion in any manner and even exhibited the compromise as Ex.C 1 (original compromise has been filed in the cords case titled as Karnail Singh v. Natha Singh, regarding which criminal Misc. No. 7276/2011 is pending in Honble Court of Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri, Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court). Further statement of Gurvinder Singh, injured is also recorded in which he stated that he has compromised the matter with the accused without any pressure or coercion in any manner and copy of compromise is Ex.C1. He further deposed that the accused belong to his village. He further deposed that the compromise which bears his signatures be accepted. Both, the complainant as well as Gurvinder Singh was identified by counsel Sh.J.P.Verma, Advocate. He further deposed that the accused belong to his village. He further deposed that the compromise which bears his signatures be accepted. Both, the complainant as well as Gurvinder Singh was identified by counsel Sh.J.P.Verma, Advocate. Now the case is pending for 21.3.2011, for awaiting the orders from Honble High . My report is submitted for your information and necessary action, please". 4. The aforesaid report is also supported by compromise Ex.C 1 placed on record of the trial Court and the statements of Jagwinder Singh and Gurvinder Singh. Both the counsel appearing on behalf of their respective parties have again verified the fact the parties to the dispute in the aforesaid FIR as well as the complaint case have compromised. 5. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non-compoundable offences. The relevant paras reads thus :- "28. 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 "finesh 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 power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 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. 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 Criminal Procedure Code, which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 4821 Further, the same cannot e invited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the " proceedings even in 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. 30. 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 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 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 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 adborrent to lawful composition of the society of would promote savagery." 6. Thus, keeping in view the facts of case and the law laid down by this Court as aforesaid, the FIR in question and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom as well as the complaint are quashed.