Crl. Misc. No. M-4329 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4329 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 19,2011 Sandeep Singh ................................... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) The petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 74 dated 9.7.2010 under Sectin 452, 326 IPC registered at Police Station Ghuman on the basis of compromise dated 30.7.2010. The FIR was recorded on the statement made by Surinder Kaur. On 2.7.2010 when she was sleeping in her house with her daughter Manjeet Kaur in the courtyard, one person entered her house after scaling the wall and throw poisonous substance on her face. After raising alarm she ran away from the house. As per her suspicion it was Crl. Misc. No. M-4329 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] Sandeep Singh son of Vassan Singh who had entered her house and throw poisonous substance on her. Thereafter, she was admitted in the hospital on 8.7.2010. In the above background, the aforesaid FIR has been registered. During the pendency of the investigation, better sense has prevailed upon the parties with the intervention of the respectables and friends and a compromise has been effected. Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2. As per the compromise, it has been stated by Surinder Kaur that on the basis of suspicion she has made a complaint again Sandeep Singh son of Vassan Singh but now with the intervention of respectables of the village she is satisfied that at the time of occurrence Sandeep Singh was not there. She does not want to take any action against Sandeep Singh and has no objection if the FIR in the present case is quashed. In compliance of the order dated 22.2.2011 a report has been submitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala, on 9.4.2011 stating that both the parties had appeared before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 20.11.2010 and their statements regarding compromise were recorded. The complainant as well as accused were duly identified by the Lambardar Joginder Singh of village Athwal. As per the statements recorded, the compromise is held to be genuine and valid. Crl. Misc. No. M-4329 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] 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 embargo, be in the shape Crl. Misc. No. M-4329 of 2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] 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 which has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide Crl. Misc. No. M-4329 of 2011 (O&M) [ 5 ] 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 conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened Crl. Misc. No. M-4329 of 2011 (O&M) [ 6 ] 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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 74 dated 9.7.2010 under Section 452, 326 IPC registered at Police Station Ghuman, is quashed. 19.4.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE