Crl. Misc. No. M-2018 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-2018 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.03.2011 Baljit Singh and another .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Upasna Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioners Sh. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No. 46/1 of 2004 dated 19.03.2004 under Sections 307, 498-A, 427-A of IPC titled as Ravinder Singh versus Baljit Singh and others pending in the Court of Ashish Abrol, ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar and all consequential proceedings arising out of the complaint, on the basis of compromise. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 2 lodged FIR No. 91 dated 24.09.2003 against respondent No. 2 and others at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar and in the cross version Ravinder Singh- respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners saying that when the complainant was driving the motorcycle on their way to police station and when they reached near Rampur they found that accused Baljit Singh was coming on Tata Sumo from the opposite side and on seeing Crl. Misc. No. M-2018 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the complainant, he intentionally came on the wrong side and the complainant turned his Motorcycle to the extreme left on kucha road, but the accused Baljit Singh took a sharp turn to the complainant's Motor cycle on absolutely wrong side and struck his vehicle into the motorcycle with a view to kill the complainant and person sitting on the pillion. It has further been stated that the complainant and his pillion companion fortunately fell from the Motor cycle, otherwise they would have been completely crushed beneath the Tata Sumo. The Motor Cycle got struck up in the Tata Sumo and was dragged to a distance of about 400 yards. However, both the cases are pending in the Court of JMIC, Jalandhar and the matter involved in Both the cases basically a matrimonial dispute, which culminated into the above mentioned two cases and now with the intervention of the respectables and without any pressure undue advantage and threat and for the future better relations between the parties. All the misunderstanding and misconceptions between both the parties have been removed. The compromise is Annexure P2. Vide order dated 24.01.2011, the trial Court was directed to send the report with regard to the validity of the compromise and parties were also directed to appear before the trial court to get their statements recorded. In compliance of order dated 24.01.2011, a report has been submitted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalanhdar. As per the report, the statements of complainant as well as accused were recorded wherein they have asserted that they have compromised the matter and the complainant has stated that he does not want to proceed with the present complaint. Consequently, the compromise effected between the parties appears to be genuine one and without any force or pressure. Crl. Misc. No. M-2018 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-2018 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-2018 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have settled their differences. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat that she is not interested in prosecuting the appellants. It may be pertinent to mention that the parties hail from cultured and educated families. It was also submitted that the appellant's parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of advanced age. The appellant's father is a retired Professor and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone transplant of his kidney and the appellant's mother is suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden.” Crl. Misc. No. M-2018 of 2011 (O&M) -6- 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 Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (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) , Complaint No. 46/1 of 2004 dated 19.03.2004 under Sections 307, 498-A, 427-A of IPC titled as Ravinder Singh versus Baljit Singh and others pending in the Court of Ashish Abrol, ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE March 28, 2011 G.Arora