CRM No. M-37973 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-37973 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.2.2011 Arun Kumar Kaura .......... petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. N.S. Lucky, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 188 dated 9.7.2005 under Sections 356, 341, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. The above referred FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Vijay Krishan Dhir, alleging that he had gone to the Court of SDM, Jalandhar for recording his evidence in the case of 107/151 registered against Arun Kumar Kaura and his brothers as CRM No. M-37973 of 2010 -2- they were threatening to kill him and involve his in some false case in case he and his depose against them in a case registered against them under Section 452, 325, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC. After recording his statement, when he came out from the Court rook Arun Kumar Kaura manhandled him and abused him in filthy language. He threatened to involve him in a false case. During manhandling Arun Kumar Kaura took away his mobile phone. Feeling danger to his life the above Vikay Krishan Dhir got the above FIR registered. With the intervention of the respectables both the parties have entered into compromise and they are living peacefully. They have agreed to withdraw all the cases against each other. An affidavit of respondent No.2/ complainant has been filed in Court. Vijay Krishan Dhir-Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and he has been identified by his counsel. As per the affidavit the parties have entered into compromise with the intervention of respectables without any pressure, threat or coercion. He has no objection if the FIR in question along with all consequential proceedings are quashed. 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 :- CRM No. M-37973 of 2010 -3- “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 amity and reduces friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, CRM No. M-37973 of 2010 -4- 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 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 CRM No. M-37973 of 2010 -5- Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ha s 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 a re, cannot afford.” 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. 188 dated 9.7.2005 under Sections 356, 341, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. 15.2.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE