Crl. Misc.No. M- 36590 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M- 36590 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision : 27.04.2011 Shanky Garg ......Petitioner versus Union Territory Chandigarhand another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. R.S. Modi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal , Advocate for for the complainant/respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.306 dated 01.11.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 279/337 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Manimajra, Chandigarh and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure P2). Brief facts of the case are that as per the F.I.R, on 30.10.2010, the complainant was going on his Activa bearing No. CH-03-S-4879 from his house to Panchkula. When he arrived at Railway Light Point and crossed the light then one car bearing No. HR-02R-0034 came at a very high speed and negligently. Without giving any horn, the driver of the car hit the scooter of the complainant and he fell down along with his scooter. Due to this fall, he got injuries on his left arm and head. His scooter damaged in the Crl. Misc.No. M- 36590 of 2010(O&M) -2- accident badly. Thereafter, someone called the police from control room and the police took him for treatment to Govt. Hospital Sector 16. Later on the complainant came to know about the name and address of driver of the car i..e Shanky Garg r/o H. No. 104, Madhya Colony, Yamuna Nagar and now resident of House No. 561, Sector 7 Panchkula. In the above background, F.I.R was registered by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. However, during the pendency of investigation of the F.I.R, both the parties arrived at a compromise (Annexure P2) and the complainant do not want to pursue any legal (Civil or Criminal) proceedings against the petitioner. The complainant has further no objection if the proceedings against the accused be dropped. In compliance of the order dated 14.12.2010, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and get their statements recorded. As per the report of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh, both parties appeared before the Court and made their statements in which they have admitted the factum of compromise with each other. As per the statement of the complainant, he has compromised the matter with the petitioner with the intervention of relatives and friends. The complainant has also placed on record the affidavit/compromise dated 11.11.2010 and he has no objection if the F.I.R in question is quashed. Accused Shanky has also suffered a statement to the effect that the matter has been compromised with the complainant. They have amicably settled the matter on 11.11.2010. After going through the statements of both the parties, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh is of the view that compromise is valid and 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 Crl. Misc.No. M- 36590 of 2010(O&M) -3- 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 Crl. Misc.No. M- 36590 of 2010(O&M) -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc.No. M- 36590 of 2010(O&M) -5- 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.306 dated 01.11.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 279/337 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Manimajra, Chandigarh is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 27, 2011 G.Arora