CRM No. M-35683 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-35683 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.2.2011 Satwinder Kaur & others .......... petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 84 dated 27.6.2009 under Sections 379 IPC registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. As per the contents of the FIR, there was a dispute about the property in which it has been alleged that on 23.4.2008 when the complainant along with her children had gone to her parental house for the marriage of her younger sister at Parlad Nagar Hoshiarpur, the accused / petitioners broken the lock of their house at Krishna CRM No. M-35683 of 2009 -2- Nagar Hoshiarpur and took away some articles from the house. An FIR was registered and investigated in the above incident. During the pendency of this criminal miscellaneous a compromise has been effected between the parties on 13.11.2009. As per the compromise the parties are related to each other. Sanjiv Lata / respondent No.2 / complainant is present in the Court and filed her affidavit, and is taken on record. She ha s been duly identified by her counsel. As per the compromise Annexure P-2, the parties have amicably compromised the dispute involved in the present FIR and all ongoing civil litigation pending between the parties with regard to House No. B-16 MCH-19 situated in street No. 13, Mohalla Krishna Nagar, Hoshiarpur which is pending in the Court of Sh. Gurjant Singh, learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hoshiarpur. The petitioner No.1 has been given absolute ownership of this house for all purposes and the suit pending in the Court shall be withdrawn. As per the compromise she has no objection if the FIR in question along with the subsequent proceedings is 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. CRM No. M-35683 of 2009 -3- 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 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 CRM No. M-35683 of 2009 -4- 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 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 CRM No. M-35683 of 2009 -5- 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.” Keeping in view the status report, this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 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. 84 dated 27.6.2009 under Sections 379 IPC registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur District Hoshiarpur is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 24.2.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE