Chandigarh, August 8
Pronouncing an order of major consequence, which overruled the three-judge judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a full Bench of the court today said the court was well within its powers under Section 482, CrPC, to quash an FIR if the parties had entered into a compromise and settled disputes.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Vijender Jain, Justice P.Sathasivam, Justice Rajive Bhalla, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Mahesh Grover, held that inherent powers of the high court under Section 482, CrPC, were wide enough and could be invoked to strike down the criminal proceedings (in case of non-compoundable offences also), arising out of a civil dispute, which had been amicably resolved by parties.
“It will be in the interest of society and essential to maintain decorum that the inherent powers are given the widest interpretation. No bar should ordinarily be allowed to check the flow of these powers when exercised for the public good,” the Bench said, thus acknowledging G.S Kaura’s counsel for petitioners, submissions made during previous hearings.
The apex court ruling in the case of B.S. Joshi vs State of Haryana (2003) was extensively referred to by the full
Bench. In the said judgement, the Supreme Court had held that even where the offence might be non-compoundable, if the parties had settled their disputes then the high court would be well with in its powers to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Incidentally, the majority view of three-judge Bench of the high court (now overruled), comprising Justice B.K Roy, Justice Amar Dutt and Justice V.K. Bali (dissenting), in the case of Dharambir Vs Haryana (2005) was that there was no provision of law nor did the Constitution allowed the high court to quash the prosecution or allow the compounding of offences, which were not declared compoundable by the legislature.
In the backdrop of this earlier view, the important question of law before this full Bench was that if the inherent power of the court was confined to matrimonial disputes only and also if the Section 320 CrPC (compounding of non compoundable offence) imposed any check on the said powers of the court. The said query had come before the full Bench through a reference order by Justice Surya Kant (dated 30,2007) in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab and others.
In the said case, an FIR was registered under Sections 452 (trespass), 427,148 (common objective) and 149 (armed with deadly weapons) against the petitioners, Kulwinder Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Mandeep Singh and Ravinder Singh, at police station Ghuman, Gurdaspur, over a property dispute.
Later, both the parties resolved their dispute and a compromise deed too was executed. Following the settlement, the petitioners moved the high court seeking the quashing of the said FIR and stay on the proceedings before the trial court.
Justice Surya Kant reflected deeply on the concepts of compoundable and non-compoundable offences in his order and found the matter fit to be referred to the larger Bench.
The reference order pondered over the question as to whether Section 320(9), CrPC, which prohibited compounding of offences not falling within the ambit of sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 320 of the code, can barge into the Constitutional powers of the high court under Article 226 and Article 227.
The counsel of the petitioners, G.S Kaura, had averred before the court during previous hearings that to reduce backlog and curb unnecessary trial, it was essential that the bar imposed by Section 320 CrPC was ignored.
