Criminal Misc. No. M- 34423 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 34423 of 2010 Date of decision:- 09.03.2011 Parvinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate for Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the Cross case under Sections 324,323,148 and 149 IPC registered in FIR No.138 dated 14.9.2008 under Sections 452,324,323,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-6). Brief facts of the case are that on 13.9.2008 at about 8.30 PM the accused persons armed with swords and sotas etc. came in the courtyard of the house of complainant and caused him injuries. After investigation, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented under Sections 324,323,148 and 149 IPC. During pendency of the trial, the prosecution examined the injured Shinda Singh as PW1, Bittu as PW2 and Jaswinder Singh as PW3. These witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. They were declared hostile. In their cross- examination nothing material was found. Thereafter, evidence of the Criminal Misc. No. M- 34423 of 2010 -2- prosecution was closed. The examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with and all the accused were acquitted of the charges vide order dated 03.09.2010. The petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender and has alleged that no specific role was attributed to the petitioner. The proceedings as contemplated under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were not followed before declaring him as proclaimed offender. Father of the petitioner has entered into compromise with the complainant on 30.10.2010, which is Annexure P-6. Since all the witnesses turned hostile during pendency of the trial and in view of compromise dated 30.10.2010 no useful purpose will be served to proceed with the trial against the petitioner. This petition has been filed by father of the accused, who is special power of attorney authorizing him to pursue this case pending in the Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the judgment of trial Court dated 03.09.2010 and in view of compromise between the parties (Annexure P-6) dated 30.10.2010 this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served to proceed the trial against the petitioner. In compliance of order dated 23.11.2010, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kapurthala has sent a report dated 23.12.2010 verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 13.12.2010 parties appeared before the Court and have suffered statement that a compromise reached at in between them, which is valid and volunteer to achieve peace amongst them. 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:- Criminal Misc. No. M- 34423 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 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.” Criminal Misc. No. M- 34423 of 2010 -4- 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 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), Cross case under Sections 324,323,148 and 149 IPC registered in FIR No.138 dated Criminal Misc. No. M- 34423 of 2010 -5- 14.9.2008 under Sections 452,324,323,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. March 09, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE