← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/7319/2014allowed

Jatinder Kumar And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2015-03-02Mr. Justice T.H.B. Chalapathi5 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:02.03.2015 Jatinder Kumar and others .....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Criminal Misc. No. M-6778 of 2015 Dharminder Kumar and others .....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. R.Kartikeya, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-7319 of 2014.

Mr.D.S.Virk, AAG, Punjab.

Mr.Arun Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 (in CRM-M-7319 of 2014) and for the petitioners in CRM-M-6778 of 2015.

**** 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.142 dated 15.10.2013, under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) (Section 326 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Bullowal and the consequential proceedings

-2arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Second petition has been filed by the petitioners bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-6778 of 2015, "Dharminder Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others" seeking quashing of cross version dated 21.10.2013 (Annexure P-2) arising out of the same FIR. Notice of motion was issued in CRM-M-7319 of 2014. In compliance of the order dated 08.09.2014 passed by this Court, the parties got their statements recorded before the learned trial court. Consequently, report dated 21.10.2014 sent by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, has been received which is available on record of the case alongwith 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 petitioner 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. It is so said because the parties have arrived at an out of Court settlement by way of compromise. 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.

-3The view taken by this Court finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shiji @ Pappu and others versus Radhika and another, 2012 (1) RCR (criminal) 9 and also from the larger Bench judgment 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 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.

-4stand 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 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."

-5Reverting 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 from the learned trial court, this Court has 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.142 dated 15.10.2013, under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Bullowal and cross version dated 21.10.2013 (Annexure P-2) arising out of the same FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed.

Instant petitions stand allowed.

(Rameshwar Singh Malik) Judge 02.03.2015 anju