DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C on behalf of petitioners namely, Gurpreet Singh, Harinder Singh and Harmeet Kaur for quashing of FIR No.192 dated 29.10.2010 registered under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar on the basis of compromise before Lok Adalat vide order dated 28.1.2011 which is annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition. Notice of motion was issued on 1.2.2011.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and statements of the parties in this regard have been recorded before Permanent Lok Adalat at the time of filing of the application for anticipatory bail as the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. Statements of the parties are annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further submits that compromise has been effected between the parties with certain terms and conditions as mentioned in the statement and the complainant has also affirmed the factum of compromise. She has stated that she has no claim regarding dowry articles, maintenance against the petitioners and she has no objection in quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record copy of the statement recorded in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. An amount of Rs.8 lacs has been paid in the Court against total amount of Rs.16 lacs as settled in the compromise. Since the matter has been compromised between the parties and the complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. The complainant himself does not want to pursue these proceedings and it shall be merely a formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court as complainant would not support the case of prosecution in view of compromise between the parties. It would be in the interest of the parties as well as in the large interest of the society, peace and harmony and in order to save both the families from avoidable litigation that the compromise arrived at between them is accepted by this Court.
(3.) IT has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney (1980)1 SCC 63 that "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. Relying on the views adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) R.C.R. (Cri) 1052 that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C., offence non-compoundable but parties entering into compromise, High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. While dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise a Bench consisting of Five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426: 2005(2) Apex Criminal 424: 2005 (2) Law Herald 723 (P&H) (FB), opined as under:- " 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 Cr.P.C. 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". No embargo, be in the shape of section 320 (9) Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 438 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 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. 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.;