Criminal Misc. No. M-5481 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-5481 of 2011 Date of decision:- 27.5.2011 Pritpal Singh @ Pappu ...Petitioner Versus Gursewak Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. R.K. Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Barnala, Advocate for the respondent. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioner has sought quashing of complaint No.126 dated 03.12.2001 under Sections 323,325,506 and 34 IPC (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 27.9.2003 (Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise. As per complaint on 14.11.2001 on the occasion of Diwali all the accused in the complaint had misbehaved with complainant's son Maninder Jit Singh and Karnail Singh son of Amar Singh released him from the clutches of the accused. Darshan Singh and Karnail Singh were the witnesses to the said incident and they informed about the incident to the Sarpanch. Complainant's son was medically examined and was remained in hospital till 01.12.2001. In the above background the FIR was registered. Vide order dated 19.7.2007 the complainant Gursewak Singh made a statement that the matter has been compromised and he does not want to Criminal Misc. No. M-5481 of 2011 -2- proceed with the present complaint and in view of this statement the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn and the accused Sandeep alias Sandy, Buta Singh and Mohinder Singh were discharged. Vide order dated 14.3.2006 the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. Counsel for the petitioner states that when this order was passed petitioner was not in India and he could not be served as contemplated under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Counsel for the respondent has tendered the affidavit of Gursewak Singh, who is present in the Court and identified by his counsel, with regard to the compromise effected between the parties. This Court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.3.2011 had an occasion to examine a case where three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal were facing trial under Section 302 IPC, and subsequently they had absconded and declared proclaimed offenders. In the trial, accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were convicted by the trial Court. Appeal of accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were allowed by observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case. While examining the case of the three accused, who had been declared proclaimed offenders, this Court, while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the proceedings against the absconding accused on the ground that no useful purpose will be served if they are produced and ordered to face the trial. Since now the matter has been compromised on 27.1.2011 (Annexure P-6) no useful purpose will be served to compel the petitioner to come and face the trial and it will be the exercise of futility. The ration of Division Bench judgment Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab are directly applicable to the facts of the present case. In 2007 all the Criminal Misc. No. M-5481 of 2011 -3- other co-accused were discharged as the matter was compromised. 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 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, Criminal Misc. No. M-5481 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-5481 of 2011 -5- 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) and Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab (supra), complaint No.126 dated 03.12.2001 under Sections 323,325,506 and 34 IPC (Annexure P- 1) and summoning order dated 27.9.2003 (Annexure P-2) are quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. May 27, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE