Crl. Misc. No.M-11034 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-11034 of 2011 Date of decision: May 09, 2011. Akdev Kaur and another ... Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & anr. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.212 dated 12.8.2006, registered at Police Station City Faridkot, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered at the instance of Chairperson, Scheduled Castes Commission, Punjab as respondent No.2 had approached the Commission. In her complaint, respondent No.2 had stated that she was posted as Senior Clerk in the Drainage Division at Faridkot and vide order dated 31.5.2006, she was transferred against a vacant post. In compliance Crl. Misc. No.M-11034 of 2011 -: 2 :- of the transfer orders, she presented her joining report on 8.6.2006 before Jaswant Singh, XEN, Canal Division. At that time, petitioner No.1 – Superintendent was also present in the room of the XEN. It is stated that taking the name of the caste, certain words were uttered which were derogatory in nature and the complainant was shown in poor light because of her caste. In the present petition, quashing of the FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise Annexure P-2. It is stated in the compromise that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably and therefore, the complainant has agreed to facilitate quashing of the FIR. It is stated that the compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the respectables and members of the Panchayat. On April 18, 2011, this Court had asked Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot to verify the factum of compromise and submit a report to this Court. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot has sent his report dated 27.4.2011 in which it has been stated as under:- “Accused filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR on the basis of compromise and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18.4.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No.M- 11034 of 2011 called report from the present court with regard to the factum of compromise. Parties directed to appear before the present court on 27.4.2011. In compliance of that parties i.e., complainant Lakhvir Kaur appeared with her counsel Shri Lakhwinder Singh Advocate and accused Jaswant Singh Sandhu and Akdev Kaur appeared along with their counsel Shri Oma Shanker Sharma Advocate. Statements of complainant and accused recorded. Lakhbir Kaur complainant in her statement stated that she has got lodged the FIR against the accused. Now she has effected compromise Crl. Misc. No.M-11034 of 2011 -: 3 :- with the accused. Copy of said written compromise is Ex.C1. Said compromise bears her signatures. She has effected the compromise with the accused with her sweet will and without any influence. As per said compromise if the FIR be quashed she has no objection. Compromise is in the interest of both the parties as the enmity arose between them has finished due to said compromise. Her relations will remain good with the accused as they have to work in the same department. Further in support of her identification she has produced on the file photo copy of her Identity Card. Accused Jaswant Singh Sandhu and Akdev Kaur in their statement also stated that they have effected compromise. They have seen photo copy of the compromise. Same bears their signatures. They will not make any kind of proceedings against the complainant. If complainant is transferred to their office, they will not harass her in any manner and they will work as a brotherhood. Compromise is in the interest of both the parties. Further they produced Identity Cards in support of their identification. 4. From above said statements of complainant and accused, I am of the considered opinion that complainant has voluntarily, without any pressure, effected the compromise. Though as per provisions contained under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, offence is not mentioned as compoundable, but compromise effected by the complainant in this case is in the interest of both the parties as due to this compromise enmity arose between them has finished.” Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Harbans Singh, has stated that the Investigating Agency has already submitted a cancellation report but the cancellation report was not accepted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge for lack of jurisdiction. As on today, the State has taken a categoric stand that they do not want to prosecute the petitioner as they have filed a cancellation report. The complainant has already Crl. Misc. No.M-11034 of 2011 -: 4 :- compromised the matter and the compromise has been duly verified by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot who has sent his report dated 27.4.2011 to this Court and relevant portion of which has already been reproduced above. This Court in Surta Ram & others v. State of Punjab and another, 2010(1) RCR (Crl.) 782 had considered whether on the basis of compromise FIR qua the offences made under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be quashed or not. It will be necessary to reproduced following portion of the judgment rendered in Surta Ram's case (supra):- “5. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that since the dispute has been compromised, therefore, the present FIR along with all the subsequent proceedings be quashed. He has placed reliance on Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports 1052. 6. On observations made by this Court that quashing of FIR along with all the subsequent proceedings, for the offences falling under the Act cannot be quashed as same is against public policy, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Usha Gupta v. Amir Chand, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 788 and Hawa Singh and others v. Bishamber Dayal, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 325 to state that in these two cases where the accused have been prosecuted for offence under the Act, prosecution has been quashed. In Usha Gupta's case (supra) a Single Bench of this Court had placed reliance upon Shankuntla Sahni v. Kaushalya Sahni, 1980(1) SCC 63. In Hawa Singh's case (supra) on basis of compromise, FIR was quashed. 7. Since the parties are co-villagers and if present FIR along with all Crl. Misc. No.M-11034 of 2011 -: 5 :- subsequent proceedings is not quashed, there will be a simmering discontentment in the village. The Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was enacted to promote social harmony, so that fear of punishment act as deterrence to curb evil of caste exploitation. Compromise, between co-villagers is to be acknowledged, and granted due sanctity, so that wedge between parties no longer subsist. Therefore, taking larger interest of the parties in view and the ratio of Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), Usha Gupta's case (supra), Hawa Singh's case (supra), the present petition is accepted and the FIR along with all the subsequent proceedings is quashed.” In the present case, the petitioners accused and the respondent are working in the same office. Social harmony requires that the petitioners and the complainant should have cordial relations and this Court should not come in the way of the parties in case they intend to promote amity and ever-lasting peace. Hence, the present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR is quashed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] May 09, 2011. Judge kadyan