Crl. Misc. No. M-6106 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-6106 of 2011 Date of Decision: 01.06.2011 Sunder Lal others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. B.P.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for the respondent – State 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 98 dated 1.6.2007 under Sections 326/324/323/341/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala on the basis of compromise. The present FIR was registered on the statement of Darshan Singh s/o Surjan Singh. The dispute arose about two years back when complainant and his brother had got executed a registered sale deed measuring 2 kanal 11 marla land from Rashpal Singh s/o Makhan Singh. After possession was taken, khasra Girdawari was changed in the name of complainants by the Tehsildar Patran. On 31.5.2007, at about 5.00 p.m. Makhan Singh son of Teja Singh, Majhbi Sikgh armed with Dang, Megha Singh, Majhbi Singh armed with Barshi, Bhola Singh, Majhbi Singh armed with Dang, Crl. Misc. No. M-6106 of 2011 2 Sundar Lal armed with gandasi attacked the complaint DarshanSingh In the above background, the FIR was registered. The cross-case has also been registered on the statement of Makhan Singh co- accused. In compliance of order dated 25.2.2011, the status report has been submitted by District and Sessions Judge, Patiala. As per the status report, the statement of the complainant has been recorded to the effect that compromise has been effected without any inducement or pressure. Statement of accused Sunder Lal, Gurdeep Singh, Pardeep Singh has also been recorded to the same effect. In the cross-case pending in the Court of Sh. Baljinder Singh, JMIC, Samana, they have made separate statement regarding the compromise in that case. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-6106 of 2011 3 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 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 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 :- Crl. Misc. No. M-6106 of 2011 4 “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.” 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 others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 98 dated 1.6.2007 under Sections 326/324/323/341/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) 01.06.2011 JUDGE reena