Criminal Misc. No. M-5361 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-5361 of 2011 Date of decision:-27.5.2011 Sucha Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No.197 dated 23.11.2009 under Sections 323,325,34 IPC, registered at Police Station Guruhar Sahai, District Ferozepur on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered on the statement of Surjit Singh that on 22.11.2009 at about 6 PM when he was sitting at his shop, Sandeep Singh son of Iqbal Singh, Chhinder Pal Singh son of Harnam Singh and Sucha Singh son of Iqbal Singh started quarreling in front of his shop and they were sent home after conciliation with the interference of complainant. At about 7.30 PM, Sucha Singh and Iqbal alongwith Kapa, Gursewak Singh came in front of shop of complainant and were going to the house of Sandeep Singh son of Iqbal Singh. When complainant advised them not to do that then Sucha Singh gave a kapa blow from blunt side to the complainant due to which his three front teeths broke down and many injuries were caused to him. When he raised alaram then Criminal Misc. No. M-5361 of 2011 -2- Harnam Singh son of Mehar Singh and Mehar Singh son of Jugraj Singh came at the spot. After seeing them accused persons ran away. In the above background, the FIR was registered. Challan has been presented and the case of the petitioners was sent to the Juvenile Board. After framing of charge on 15.1.2011 a compromise was effected between the parties (Annexure P-2). In compliance of order dated 21.2.2011 status report has been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalalabad (West). As per status report, complainant Surjit Singh appeared before the court and made a statement on oath that he has entered into a compromise with the accused and copy of compromise is Ex.C1. He has further stated that he has no objection if the case is disposed of and the statement made is without any pressure and undue influence. Complainant Surjit Singh was duly identified by Member Panchayat Balwant Singh. In view of the status report, compromise is valid. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service. Copy of original compromise (Annexure A-1) is taken on record. After going through the file, as per FIR it was registered under Sections 323,325,34 IPC. In the compromise, it has been mentioned that FIR was registered under Sections 323,325,34 and 307 IPC. Counsel for the petitioners states that this is a typogriphical error. Even in the status report submitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalalabad it has been mentioned that the FIR was registered under Sections 323,325,34 IPC. Section 307 IPC mentioned in the compromise deed is typographical error. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-5361 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-5361 of 2011 -4- 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. 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 status report and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Criminal Misc. No. M-5361 of 2011 -5- 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.197 dated 23.11.2009 under Sections 323,325,34 IPC, registered at Police Station Guruhar Sahai, District Ferozepur, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. May 27, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE