Crl. Misc. No. M-1869 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1869 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision :21.3.2011 Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Chand & others .......... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 100 dated 23.8.2008 under Sections 326, 452, 323, 324, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station City Fazilka, District Ferozepur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. As per the contents of the FIR, complainant / respondent No.2 was married to Saroj Rani on 10.10.2005. A dispute arose in their relationship. In view of the matrimonial dispute above referred FIR was registered against the petitioners alleging that they had illegally entered into the house of the complainant and had given Crl. Misc. No. M-1869 of 2011 -2- injuries to complainant / respondent No.2. The case is still at the investigation stage. Now with the intervention of the respectables of the village , a compromise has been effected between the parties. The complainant / respondent No.2 and his wife Saroj Rani have separated and in view of the compromise, they have been granted a decree of divorce on 26.9.2009. The complainant has paid a permanent alimony of Rs. 5.5 lacs to Saroj Rani and has also returned all the dowry articles. The child is living in the custody of the complainant, who is looking after her. In view of the above background, the complainant / respondent No.2 has decided to withdraw the present FIR against the petitioners. In compliance of the order dated 20.1.2011, passed by this Court, a report from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka has been received. As per the report, the complainant / injured and the accused party put in appearance in the Court on 9.2.2011 along with their respective counsel. The complainant / injured Amarjit son of Satnam Dass was duly identified by his counsel Sh. B.S. Brar, whereas, the accused party comprising of Ramesh Kumar, Madan Lal sons of Narnajan Dass and Krishan Lal son of Sh. Sher Chand and Chhinda @ Rakesh Kumar son of Hazara Ram, appeared in the Court and were duly identified by their counsel Sh. Preet Bhupinder Singh Grewal, Advocate. The statements of both the complainant / injured party have been recorded, along with his counsel. As per the complainant he had matrimonial dispute with Crl. Misc. No. M-1869 of 2011 -3- his wife and the FIR No. 100 dated 23.8.2008 under Sections 326, IPC registered. The matter has now been compromised vide compromise deed Annexure C-2 and they have decided all the litigation pending between the parties. While submitting the status report, the learned trial Court is satisfied that the compromise has been arrived voluntary with the intervention of the respectables of the society. The offence under Section 326 IPC is specifically non- compoundable, however, the compromise has been effected with all the good intentions and it aims to bring an end to all litigation between the concerned parties. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1869 of 2011 -4- 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 amity 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1869 of 2011 -5- litigation.” The ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference 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) R.C.R. (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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1869 of 2011 -6- conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they a re, 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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 100 dated 23.8.2008 under Sections 326, 452, 323, 324, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station City Fazilka, District Ferozepur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise is quashed qua the petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 21.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE