Crl.Misc.No.M-7945 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.No.M-7945 of 2011 Date of Decision: 30.5.2011 [ENTITY] and others Petitioners Vs. [ENTITY] and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present : Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. [ENTITY], AAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. [ENTITY], J (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under [SECTION] [ACT] for quashing the FIR No.19 dated 26.1.2007 (Annexure P-1) under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT],read with [SECTION] of [ACT] registered at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2).
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was registered on the statement of [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY]. The complainant [ENTITY] is employed with [ENTITY]. Permission was sought to enable [ENTITY] to attend the function in the neighbourhood. When [ENTITY] did not return, [ENTITY] went for his search and on the way [ENTITY] was given beating by [ENTITY]. In this background, the FIR was registered. [ENTITY] alongwith [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] had abused derogatory words to the complainant. After presentation of the challan, petitioner no. 3 was summoned to face the trial under [SECTION] of the [ACT] During the pendency of the trial, the parties have entered into a compromise on 12.3.2011 (Annexure P-2).
In compliance of the order dated 15.3.2011, statements of the parties and compromise have been submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa. As per the report, statements of [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have been recorded. They have stated that they have effected a compromise with their free will, without duress and coercion. Statement of [ENTITY] has also been recorded. Statement of the complainant [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] has also been recorded that he has compromised the matter without any duress and coercion. The compromise has been thumb marked by him admitting the contents of the compromise. From the statements of the parties, the compromise appears to be genuine and valid.
In view of the 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 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), the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. [ENTITY] and another (supra), FIR No.19 dated 26.1.2007 (Annexure P-1) under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT],read with [SECTION] of [ACT] registered at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa, is quashed with all consequential proceeding arising therefrom qua the petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
30.5.2011 ( [ENTITY] ) GS JUDGE