- (1.) The present petitions i.e. CRM No. M-3126 of 2011 and CRM No. M-4382 of 2011 have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of petitioners, namely, Jagjit Singh and Maskin Singh respectively, for quashing of FIR No. 138, dated 14.06.2010, under Sections 294/506 IPC and Section 67 of the Right to Information Act, registered at Police Station Civil Line, Batala, District Batala, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
(2.) While issuing notice of motion on 01.02.2011 and 14.02.2011 in CRM No. M-3126 of 2011 and CRM No. M-4382 of 2011 respectively, directions were also issued for recording of the statements, as a compromise has been effected between the parties and complainant was having no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings initiated against the petitioners. In response to directions issued by this Court, statements of the parties were recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Batala, and in this regard, a report has also been sent which is on record. Alongwith the report, the statements of the parties have also been sent. Complainant/respondent No. 2, Major Singh, has specifically stated that he has compromised the dispute with the accused persons and he does not want to proceed with the case and that the compromise is without any threat or coercion and he has no objection in quashing of the FIR. Similar statements of both the accused, namely, Jagjit Singh and Maskin Singh, were also recorded where factum of compromise has been affirmed. It has also been mentioned in the report that both the parties appeared and their statements were recorded which were as per their free will and without any pressure from either side. The factum of compromise has also been affirmed by the learned counsel appearing for the \complainant/respondent No. 2. Since the matter has been compromised between the parties, 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 larger interest of the societal peace and harmony and in order to save both the parties from avoidable litigation, 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 RCR(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.;