Crl. Misc. No. M-4825 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4825 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.05.2011 Deepak Kumar and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Puneet, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Guninder S. Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No.166 dated 17.11.2006 under Sections 452, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') registered at Police Station Sadar, District Gurdaspur and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2. On 16.11.2006, at about 10.15 P.M Deepak Kumar, Raman Kumar armed with sticks entered the gate of Crl. Misc. No. M-4825 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the house of the complainant and started abusing the complainant and his uncle. Thereafter, Sunita raised a lalkara to catch hold them and teach them a lesson for stopping the accused from digging sewerage work. Then Tarsem Lal took up brick bat lying on ground and gave a brick bat blwo to the complainant which hit on back side of his left should. Thereafter, Deepak Kumar and Tarsem Lal gave two dang blows to him which hit on his left ear and left eye. Then Raman Kumar gave two dang blows to the complainant which hit on the back side of his knee of his left leg. All these three persons after inflicted injuries ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. In the above background, FIR was registered against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of the trial, but the parties have compromised the matter, vide Annexure P1. As per compromise, respondent No. 2 filed the above said FIR and the accused party have filed a complainant against respondent No. 2, which is pending in the Court of ACJM, Gurdaspur. Now with the intervention of respectables of the village, the parties have entered into compromise and resolved all their differences in the presence of the respectables. Respondent No. 2 has stated that he will withdraw the above said FIR and in the same manner, the accused party has stated that they had already withdrawn the complaint filed by them. The compromise is without any pressure and with the consent of both the parties as both are of Crl. Misc. No. M-4825 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the same village. They want to live in a peaceful manner. Both the parties have put their signatures in the presence of witnesses. Original compromise is also taken on record as Annexure A-1. In compliance of order dated 17.02.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements. Report of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur has been received in this regard. As per this report, statement of complainant has been recorded who has stated that the matter has been compromised with the intervention of respectables of the village between them and the compromise is without any pressure and with free consent. Similarly the statement of accused Deepak Kumar and others have also been recorded who have also stated that the parties have entered into compromise and resolved all their differences in the presence of the respectables. Now there is no litigation is pending between them in court. Both the parties have no objection if the above said FIR 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-4825 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-4825 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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 :- “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 Crl. Misc. No. M-4825 of 2011 (O&M) -6- 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 status report, compromise effected between the parties and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases 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.166 dated 17.11.2006 under Sections 452, 323, 34 of the Code registered at Police Station Sadar, District Gurdaspur, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 25, 2011 G.Arora