CRM No. M-23362 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-23362 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.2.2011 Ranjit Kaur & others .......... petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Saurabh Khurana, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 123 dated 19.7.2007 under Sections 325, 323, 427, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Balachaur, District Nawanshahr and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. The allegations in the above referred, FIR were that on 29.6.2007 at about 10.30 P.M. Surinder Singh- complainant along with Hari Singh son of Kishan Singh after loading the tent articles of marriage of the daughther of Mangal Singh on his tractor when they CRM No. M-23362 of 2010 -2- were returning to their village and had started taking meal at the house of Hari Singh. In the meantime Hardev Singh son of Kabu Singh along with 7/8 persons started beating Hari Singh and his servant Ranjit Bhayia, who was standing with the tractor. One person out of the above persons, gave a lathi blow on the index finger of right hand of Surinder Singh. A danda blow was given to Hari Singh when he tried to save Surinder Singh. In the meantime many people gathered at the spot and Hardev Singh fled away from the spot along with other persons. In this quarrel Manga Saini and Kalu were included with them. Hardev Singh, his son Romi, Hansu and his maternal son and his wife Ranjit Kaur were also included in the quarrel. The cause of grudge was that Surinder Singh had helped Mohinder Singh, who had some quarrel with Hardev Singh. In view of the above, an FIR was registered and the proceedings were initiated. However, during the pendency of the proceedings compromise had been effected with the intervention of the respectables of the village. The parties are closely related to each other and now the misunderstanding has been removed. In order to bring harmony among themselves and family members, a compromise has been effected. The parties have also agreed and compromised in the FIR and the cross-cases registered against each other. An affidavit of respondent No.2/ complainant has been filed in Court. Surinder Singh-complainant / respondent No.2 is present in the Court. He has been identified by his counsel. As per CRM No. M-23362 of 2010 -3- the affidavit the parties have entered into compromise with the intervention of respectables without any pressure, threat or coercion. He does not wish to pursue the proceedings in cross case against the petitioners and he has no objection if the FIR in question along with all consequential proceedings are 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 which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently CRM No. M-23362 of 2010 -4- 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 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 CRM No. M-23362 of 2010 -5- 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 ha s 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 conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they a re, cannot afford.” In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CRM No. M-23362 of 2010 -6- 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. 123 dated 19.7.2007 under Sections 325, 323, 427, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Balachaur, District Nawanshahr is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 15.2.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE