Crl. Misc. No. M-10461 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-10461 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 31.05.2011 Anshuman Bhardwaj ......Petitioner versus U.T. Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Sarfaraj Hussain, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh Mr. Bharaj Chhokar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.43 dated 31.01.2011 under Sections 324/506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code'), registered at Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 24.03.2011 (Annexure P-2). Brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered Crl. Misc. No. M-10461 of 2011 (O&M) -2- at the instance of Gaurav (respondent No. 2). As per FIR, respondent No. 2 was previously residing at the first floor in House No. 3583/37-D, Chandigarh with two boys namely Pardeep Rai and Anshuman were also living with respondent No. 2. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 took one room on rent in house No. 351/32 Chandigarh. On 16.01.2011, respondent No. 2 went to House No. 3583, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh for taking his clothes and shoes etc and told Anshuman that he has taken room in Sector 32 . Thereafter the two cousin brother of respondent No. 2 came there to meet him. He thought of picking up his kitchen articles lying in House No. 3583, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh, so, the complainant took Rajnish and Gagandeep Singh for help. Thereafter Anshuman asked for rent from the complainant and picked up kitchen knife meant for cutting vegetables and attacked the cousin of the complainant in the back and neck. When the complainant and his son tried to save him, Anshuman gave knife blow to Gagandeep Singh also, which hit him in the back. In the above background, FIR was registered against the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the trial, the parties have compromised the matter and settled their dispute with the intervention of their parents and respectables from both side and all misunderstanding between them have been sorted out amicably and Crl. Misc. No. M-10461 of 2011 (O&M) -3- now respondents have no grudge against the petitioner. They do not want to pursue the case against petitioner. They have further decided to live peacefully in future with friendly relations. They have arrived at this compromise out of their free will without any pressure, coercion, undue influence of any sort from any quarter. In compliance of the order dated 06.04.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements. Report of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh has been received in this regard. As per report, joint statements of the parties have been recorded and as per their statements, it appears that the compromise effected entered into between the parties seems to be genuine, voluntarily and out of the free will of the parties to settle their dispute amicably. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has put in appearance and tendered the replies by way of short affidavits admitting the factum of compromise and stating that they have compromised the matter with the petitioner and have also signed the compromise deed filed by the petitioner. They have admitted the contents of compromise. They have further stated that the compromise is voluntarily and out of their free will. Now they have no ill-will against the petitioner. They have further no objection if the FIR Crl. Misc. No. M-10461 of 2011 (O&M) -4- is quashed against the petitioner. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-10461 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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, 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.” Crl. Misc. No. M-10461 of 2011 (O&M) -6- 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 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, compromise effected between the parties and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases 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.43 dated 31.01.2011 under Sections 324/506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code'), Crl. Misc. No. M-10461 of 2011 (O&M) -7- registered at Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 31, 2011 G.Arora