Criminal Misc. No. M- 9438 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 9438 of 2011 Date of decision:- 29.03.2011 Lalita Jindal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Ms. Deepika Verma Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the complainants-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.106 dated 25.09.2009 under Sections 406, 417, 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kalka, District Panchkula and all subsequent proceedings out of the FIR qua the petitioner. Notice of motion. On asking of Court, Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 appeared through counsel and filed their reply by way of short affidavit, which is taken on record, 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 they are having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential Criminal Misc. No. M- 9438 of 2011 -2- proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 to 4-complainant are present in the Court and have identified by their counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-2), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise/affidavit annexed with the petition. 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 9438 of 2011 -3- 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 the parties is voluntary and Criminal Misc. No. M- 9438 of 2011 -4- 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.” This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur RCR (Crl) 2010(1) 256 has observed : “Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3 and 4-Non-compoundable offence-Of the seven accused, complainant entering into compromise with one accused-Proceedings qua one accused only quashed by High Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Criminal Misc. No. M- 9438 of 2011 -5- Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), 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) and law laid down by this Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur (supra), F.I.R No.106 dated 25.09.2009 under Sections 406, 417, 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kalka, District Panchkula is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. March 29, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE