DHARMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.59 dated 24.5.2011 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Bhikhiwind District Tarn Taran under Sections 308/ 323/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with the intervention of relatives and friends, parties have arrived at a compromise.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.2, who is present in person along with his counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise effected between the parties and has stated that he has no objection in case the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. He has tendered his affidavit by way of short reply on record in this regard. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

(3.) IN case of Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 9, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.13 has held as under:- 13. 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. 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 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." Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue.