CRM No. M-12500 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-12500 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.2.2011 Avtar Singh .......... petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Lalit Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 12 dated 13.1.2008 under Sections 333, 324, 506, 34 IPV registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. The petitioner has submitted that in view of the compromise which has been settled between the parties that both the parties will not file any complaint against each other and further will not file any kind of civil, criminal, defamation proceedings with the intervention of respectables with their own free will and without any CRM No. M-12500 of 2010 -2- pressure. As per the FIR, the impugned FIR was got registered against the petitioner on the statement of Surinder Kaur Sandhu at police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. The allegation in the FIR was that her daughter Ramandeep Kaur Dhillon got married to Wazir Singh Dhillon son of Jawahar Singh Dhillon resident of village Gaddowal,Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana on 23.12.2006. Her son-in-law Wazir Singh went to Canada after 20 days of marriage and on 18.6.2007 her daughter Ramandeep Kaur also went to Canada and joined the family of Wazir Singh, Her daughter stayed in Canada for 24 months. She returned back to India on 7.10.2007 when some problem arose. On 11.12.2007 grand father Ajaib Singh came from Canada and we requested Avtar Singh to arrange meeting with Ajaib Singh but Avtar Singh told us that Ajaib Singh still have not returned from Canada. During the meeting with the Panchayat Gaddowal, Avtar Singh and Ajaib Singh along with four and dive persons appeared before the Panchayat, while the proceedings were going on, before the Panchayat, then Gurvir Singh called her husband Major Singh outside then Avtar Singh started abusing her daughter without any reason and there was fight between Avtar Singh and Surinder Kaur Sandhu, in which Avtar Singh hit her. This incident took place in presence of Ajaib Singh, Lambardar, Bakshish Singh and other persons in the Panchayat. Thereafter she was admitted in the Civil Hospital Koom Kalan where she got treatment. CRM No. M-12500 of 2010 -3- During the pendency of this petition challan had been presented against the accused in the Court. On notice, reply has been filed by the State by way of affidavit of Balraj Singh Gill, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, wherein it has been mentioned that challan was presented in the Court and the charge has also been framed against the petitioner by the learned trial Court on 2.8.2009. The prosecution has led its evidence. A cross case against respondent No.2 is also pending in the Court. Vide order dated 26.11.2010, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court for verifying the contents of the compromise. In compliance of order dated 26.11.2010, report has been submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, wherein it has been reported that the complainant and accused appeared before the learned trial Court on 19.1.2001, and their statements were recorded. In view of the statements recorded the parties have arrived at a compromise. 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, CRM No. M-12500 of 2010 -4- (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 amity 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 CRM No. M-12500 of 2010 -5- 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 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) R.C.R. (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 CRM No. M-12500 of 2010 -6- conviction. 2. It is advisable that in 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 a re, cannot afford.” In view of the status report of the learned Judicial Magistrate, this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. 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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 12 dated 13.1.2008 under Sections 333, 324, 506, 34 IPV registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 23.2.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE