Criminal Misc. No. M- 29296 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 29296 of 2010 Date of decision:- 18.03.2011 Ranjit Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for the respondent-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 71 dated 23.5.2009 under Section 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-1 ) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per FIR, the accused in connivance with each other, with the help of duplicate key, took Rs.21,000/- from the golak (box) situated at Samadh of Baba Hari Singh Shaheed and thereby committed theft. On 20.5.2009 they were called by the members of the Committee of Samadh of Baba Hari Singh Shaheed at the place of Baba Ji, then accused Swaran Singh in the presence of all persons accepted that he and Preetinder Singh son of Sohan Singh Ex- Sarpanch had prepared a duplicate key of the Golak (box) and had taken out Rs.21,000/-, which were donated by one Devinder Kumar. The currency was identified by the complainant as the same was put in the Golak in his presence. Criminal Misc. No. M- 29296 of 2010 -2- Accused persons accepted that they had earlier also taken out money from the golak on number of occasions. In this background, the present FIR was registered against the accused. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from SI Darshan Singh states that the cancellation report submitted by the police has been accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate 02.12.2010. In compliance of order dated 04.10.2010, statement of complainant regarding compromise was recorded before the trial Court on 02.12.2010 to the effect that he has compromised the matter with the accused persons Preetinder Singh and Swaran Singh. He further stated in the statement that compromise Ex.PX is having his signatures on it and he has no objection if FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab 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 Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 29296 of 2010 -3- 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 320(9) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 29296 of 2010 -4- 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. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC 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. State of Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 71 dated 23.5.2009 under Section 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 18, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE