Criminal Misc. No. M- 5126 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 5126 of 2010 Date of decision:- 14.03.2011 Ram Kishan ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.45 dated 16.06.2001 under Sections 382,342,506,148,149,364 and 395 IPC and under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Ferozepur Cantt. District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). As per FIR, complainant alongwith Arun Kumar and Sudhir Kumar on 26.3.2000 handed over a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to Ram Kishan-accused for purchase of truck. Ram Kishan-accused used to deal the second hand vehicles. Petitioner handed over the truck to Arun Kumar but not handed over the documents of the said truck despite repeated requests. On 20.3.2001 petitioner Ram Kishan alongwith Ashok Kumar and Sandeep Midda came in their grey coloured without number Santro car took the complainant and Sudhir Kumar in Criminal Misc. No. M- 5126 of 2010 -2- the Car and proceeded from the house of Sudhir Kumar to City. On asking of complainant, they did not stop the car and ultimately Ashok Kumar and Sandeep Midda took out their revolvers and threatened them to sit quietly. After reaching Modern Rice Mills, the complainant and Sudhir Kumar were put in a room of sheller. Their hands and legs were tied. Ram Kishan petitioner asked Sandeep Midda to bring the telephine in the room. After bringing a cordless phone Sandeep asked the complainant to direct Arun Kumar to hand over the truck back to them other they would be killed. On inquiring from Arun Kumar regarding truck, accused persons took the same to the Modern Rice Mills and released the complainant and Sudhir Kumar. In this background, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner. During the proceedings in trial, co-accused namely Ashok Kumar son of Jattu Ram, Sandeep Midda @ Ruby son of Lachhman Dass Midda, Rinku Midda son of Lachhman Dass Midda and Raj Kumar @ Gullu son of Mangat Ram were acquitted by learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 09.08.2007. Learned Sessions Judge had observed the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the co-accused and released them by giving benefit of doubt. During the pendency of the trial, petitioner-Ram Kishan was declared proclaimed offender on 09.08.2007, hence, the trial against the petitioner cannot be initiated. Thereafter, the petitioner had surrendered before the trial Court and his bail application was allowed. With the intervention of respectables, both the parties have compromised on 17.2.2010 and it has been agreed that petitioner and respondent No.2 will settle their dispute and respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR is quashed qua petitioner in view of compromise dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure P-3). On 10.12.2010 this Court had given a direction to the parties to Criminal Misc. No. M- 5126 of 2010 -3- appear before the trial Court for getting their statements recorded in relation to the genuineness of the compromise. In compliance of order dated 10.12.2010 parties appeared before the trial Court and get their statements recorded. Report from the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur has been received. As per this report, parties appeared before the Court on 13.1.2011 and get their statements recorded separately. As per their statements recorded they have arrived at a compromise voluntarily, without any pressure and coercion. 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 5126 of 2010 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 5126 of 2010 -5- 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 status report and 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 16.06.2001 under Sections 382,342,506,148,149,364 and 395 IPC and under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Ferozepur Cantt. District Ferozepur, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. March 14, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE