Criminal Misc. No. M- 36240 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 36240 of 2010 Date of decision:- 23.3.2011 Kamaljit Saini and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Shiv Charan Singh Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.45 dated 18.5.2010 under Section 364 IPC read with Section 148 IPC, registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per FIR, on 18.5.2010 when complainant-respondent No.3 was on his morning walk and reached near MIG Flats at about 7.20 AM, he heard noise of quarrel and reached at Flat No.83 on top floor of MIG Flats. He saw that petitioners had tied respondent No.2 and giving beatings to him and took him in car make Dezire bearing No.PB07 Temp 1055 with intention to kill him. In this background, present FIR was registered against the petitioners. Criminal Misc. No. M- 36240 of 2010 -2- In compliance of order dated 01.2.2011, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, respondent No.2-Jatinder Singh appeared before the trial Court and recorded his statement to the effect that due to intervention of the respectables he has entered into compromise with accused namely Kamaljit Saini, Ranjit Singh, Arjun Singh, Ramesh Kumar and Sarabjit Singh. He himself, Gurpreet Kaur, Kamaljit Saini, Daljit Singh, Arjan Singh, Ramesh Kumar and Sarabjit Singh have signed the compromise and the same was witnessed by Des Raj, present MC, Urmur Tanda and Hari Krishan MC, Urmur Tanda, Balbir Singh and Daljit Singh, Ex. MC, Urmur Tanda. Original compromise dated 04.6.2010 in original has been produced before the Court. ON the other hand, accused Kamaljit Saini, Ramesh Kumar, Sarabjit Singh, Daljit Singh and Arjun Singh also made joint statement that a compromise has been effected with the complainant and the same was effected with their free will and that of complainant Jatinder Singh without any pressure, coercion or threat from any quarter with the intervention of the respectables. As per compromise, complainant does not want to proceed with the FIR in question and has no objection if the same is quashed. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 36240 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 36240 of 2010 -4- 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 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.45 dated 18.5.2010 under Section 364 IPC read with Section 148 IPC, registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar, is quashed with all consequential Criminal Misc. No. M- 36240 of 2010 -5- proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 23, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE