Crl.Misc.No.M-3671 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-3671 of 2011 Date of decision:02.06.2011 [ENTITY] Petitioner Versus [ENTITY] and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.[ENTITY], AAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. Ms.[ENTITY], Advocate for the complainant. [ENTITY], J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under [SECTION] [ACT] for quashing the FIR No.94, dated 04.11.2006, under [SECTION], [ACT], registered at Police Station Sherpur, District Barnala (Annexure P-1), now challan presented under [SECTION] [ACT] and Criminal Complaint No.6 dated 19.03.2007 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same occurrence on the basis of compromise arrived and executed between the parties.
The FIR was registered on the statement made by [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY] on 04.11.2006. The complainant was going with his grand daughter [ENTITY] who is about 7 years of age, then [ENTITY] came on his vehicle and struck against [ENTITY] who fell on the ground and after that [ENTITY] fled away. The allegation is that two days prior of the occurrence, [ENTITY] had argued to the complainant because he had a case with Panchayat of the village regarding land. After [ENTITY] struck his grand- daughter, she was taken to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, from where she was referred to Rajindra Hospital, where she died thereafter. In the above background, the FIR is registered.
After investigation, the challan was presented under [SECTION] [ACT]. During pendency of the trial, the parties have entered into a compromise which is Annexure P-4 and the affidavit of the complainant [ENTITY] is Annexure P-5. Affidavit of [ENTITY], father of the deceased child has also been filed. The original compromise is taken on record as Annexure A-1.
In compliance of the order dated 04.02.2011, the status report is filed by the additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, which reveals that on 25.04.2011, statements of complainant [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY], [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY] have been recorded that due to intervention of respectables from the sides of the complainant and the accused a compromise has been arrived between them. The complainant does not wish to initiate any action against [ENTITY].
Statement of accused [ENTITY] is also recorded to the same effect. Statements of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have also been recorded to the same effect.
After perusing the compromise, this court is of the opinion that the compromise is effected between the parties without any pressure or coercion. As per the status report, the compromise is held to be valid and genuine.
Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. [ENTITY] and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
"26. In [PRECEDENT], Hon'ble [ENTITY], J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :-
"The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion."
27. 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. No embargo, be in the shape of [SECTION] if the [ACT], or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under [SECTION] of the [ACT]
28. 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] of the [ACT] is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social emity 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] of the [ACT] 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."
The ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference which has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. [ENTITY] 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under [SECTION] [ACT] being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
"1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise - There was no possibility of conviction.
2. It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved - Court should ordinarily accept the compromise.
3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford."
Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. [ENTITY] (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. [ENTITY] and another (supra) and applying the ratio of Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus [ENTITY] (supra), FIR No. 94 dated 04.11.2006, registered at Police Station Sherpur, District Barnala, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.
It is directed that Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty Thousand only) be paid to the complainant.
The petition stands disposed of.
02.06.2011 [ [ENTITY] ] [ENTITY] JUDGE