Crl. Misc. No. M-31507 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-31507 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision :4.3.2011 Harinder Singh .......... petitioner Versus State of Punjab& another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Dinesh Trehan, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 22 dated 13.2.2010, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC registered at Police Station Adampur, Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant / respondent No.2 after closing his shop on 9.2.2010 at about 8.15, he was going to home on his scooter No. PB-08-AD-0279 and Bhagwan Dass was pilliion rider on his scooter, who had to alight on the way and he was going on his side on his scooter, then a Zen car No. PB- Crl. Misc. No. M-31507 of 2010 -2- 10-BK-6499 white colour came from the side of Sham Charasi. Its driver was driving the car at a very high speed on wrong side and hit in his scooter. Due to which he suffered injuries on both legs, head, face, both arms, left shoulder and Bhagwan Dass also suffered injuries on his leg, head and eyes. Driver of the car fled away from the spot leaving the car there. His scooter was also damaged badly. After registration of the FIR, the driver of the offending vehicle was identified and the criminal proceedings were initiated against him. Learned State counsel on instructions from HC Nirmal Singh has informed the Court that after presentation of challan and framing of charge, the matter is fixed for prosecution evidence. During the pendency of this Criminal miscellaneous a compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the petitioner. As per the compromise, the parties have settled their dispute and the misunderstanding and do not carry any misunderstanding against each other. An effort was made to trace Bhagwan Dass, who was servant of the complainant Davinder Kumar at the time of accident has left his job after the accident and he had gone to his village somewhere in UP and despite best efforts they were unable to trace him. Compromise has been entered with their own sweet Will without any pressure or coercion. Affidavit of respondent No.2 Davinder Kumar has been filed in Court through his counsel. He is also present in the Court. HC Nirmal Singh, present in the Court, has identified the complainant. The affidavit is taken on record. After going through the facts a fair compromise has been Crl. Misc. No. M-31507 of 2010 -3- arrived at between the parties without any pressure or coercion. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-31507 of 2010 -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-31507 of 2010 -5- 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 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 are, cannot afford.” Keeping in view the status report, this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 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. 22 dated 13.2.2010, under Sections 279, Crl. Misc. No. M-31507 of 2010 -6- 337, 338, 427 IPC registered at Police Station Adampur, Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is quashed on the basis of compromise. The petition stands disposed of. 4.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE