HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. MANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint No.SC-02/31.1.12 titled as Manjit Singh vs. Sohan Singh etc., under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 323/500/506/34 IPC pending in the Court of Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 14.8.2012 (Annxure P-4) entered between the parties.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of Bhupinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 443 to contend that there is no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted for the offence for the reason that the complainant has compromised the matter with the accused and he is not likely to support the prosecution and from other facts and circumstances available on the record, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to decline the prayer for quashing of the FIR on the ground that it would amount to be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offence.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No.1 ­ complainant has also handed over an affidavit dated 14.1.2013 to the above effect, which is taken on record. Consequently, in view of compromise (Annexure P-4) and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, which has been affirmed by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, and judgment of this Court in Bhupinder Kaur's case (supra) no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation, especially when this case does not fall within the category of exceptional cases where this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdictional power to quash the criminal proceedings, as held in Gian Singh's case (supra). In the facts and circumstances of this case it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, therefore, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end.