Crl. Misc. No. M-8928 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-8928 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision :04.05.2011 Gurpreet Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Guninder S. Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1 -State Mr. D.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No. 2/complainant. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of F.I.R No. 15 dated 24.01.2009, under Sections 294, 354, 341, 506, 511, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of affidavit (Annexure P2). Brief facts of the case are that as per version of F.I.R on 23.1.2099 at 5 P.M., Manpreet Singh was driving the bullet motorcycle having number PID 7070 and Gurpreet Singh (petitioner) was sitting rear to him when the complainant wife and girls were returning back to home, after purchasing articles, then petitioner held the daughter of the complainant from her arm and tried to drag her on the motorcycle and motorcycle was being driven by above said Manpreet Singh. They both tried to drag the Crl. Misc. No. M-8928 of 2011 (O&M) -2- daughter of the complainant on motorcycle with force and they also blocked the way of the complainant house when they were going and also spoken filthy words. Meanwhile, the complainant and his brother Desa Singh, his nephews Nirmal Singh, Gurmeet Singh who were also seeing fair with the complainant came on the spot. Thereafter, both persons ran away by throwing their motorcycle and both spoken filthy words to the complainant wife and daughters and also gave threats to the wife of the complainant. In the above background, the F.IR. was registered. However, during the pendency of investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectables and reputed persons who got effected the compromise dated 19.02.2009. Now the complainant do not want any proceedings in the above said case and has no objection if the above F.I.R is quashed. It has further been stated in the affidavit by the complainant that the accused Manpreet Singh has died now. Copy of affidavit is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed his reply by way of short affidavit,which is taken on record as Annexure A-1 and admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and now he is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioner. Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by his counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per affidavit (Annexure A-! ), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-8928 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-8928 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-8928 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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), F.I.R No. 15 dated 24.01.2009, under Sections 294, 354, 341, 506, 511, 34 of IP, registered at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 04, 2011 G.Arora