ANITA CHAUDHRY , J. - (1.) THE trial of the petitioner in case FIR No. 142 dated 26.09.2008, registered under Sections 323, 324, 325 and 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa has culminated into his conviction under the aforesaid heads and he has been substantively sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 11,000/ -. Out of the fine realized, 50% was ordered to be disbursed to the injured/ complainant Jagroop Singh. Fine is stated to be deposited by him before the Court below. His co - accused Kamal Kumar was acquitted of the charges. He has challenged the order of conviction and sentence by way of an appeal before the Court of Session. During the pendency thereof, it is claimed that the parties have entered into compromise with the intervention of respectable person. Compromise -deed (Annexure P -3) and affidavit of complainant Jagroop Singh (Annexure P -4), reiterating the factum of compromise, have been placed on record.
(2.) IN the reply filed on behalf of complainant -respondent no.2, it has been averred that pursuant to the compromise, the complainant has no objection if the proceedings are quashed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence are set aside. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2012(10) SCC 303 has held as under: - "48. The question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable Under Section 320 of the Code. 49. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, 'nothing in this Code' which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. 50. In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power Under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non. 51. In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection." In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.
(3.) THE Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non -compoundable offence(s) has held that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non -compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.;