CRM No. M-35685 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-35685 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.2.2011 Smt. Parkash Kaur & another .......... petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 29 dated 10.4.2007 under Sections 307, 323, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. As per the contents of the FIR, relevant part of which reads as under :- “Statement of Smt. Satwinder Kaur wife of Ranjit Singh caste Saini resident of Lohar Kangana, P.S. Bullowal, district Hoshiarpur aged 29 years stated that I am resident of CRM No. M-35685 of 2009 -2- the above mentioned address and my husband resides in Kuwait. I am doing training of computer course at Hoshiarpur. I have one daughter namely Harveen Kaur aged 5 months. My bother-in-law Iqbal Singh is working in the Railway Department at Ludhiana. My husband sent money from abroad purchased one Kothi in the name of my mother-in-law Parkash Kaur in Krishan Nagar, Hoshiarpur. My mother-in-law thereafter, executed a registered sale deed of this Kothi in my name. Before my husband sent money from abroad and got constructed one Kothi at Patiala. This Kothi was purchased by my brother-in-law in his own name and then he sold the said Kothi in order to usurp the money of my husband. In the year 2006 when I was away to meet my husband, Iqbal Singh shifted his resident in the Kothi at Krishan Nagar, Hoshiarpur. My brother-in-law started putting pressure my mother-in-law Parkash Kaur and started harassing me in order to get the papers of Kothi of Hoshiarpur. On 8.4.2007 at about 9 P.M., as usual I was preparing to sleep with my daughter in my house at Lohar Kangana. My mother-in-law in anger told me to switched of the bulb outside the room and also told me to bring the papers. I told her that papers are not with me. My brother-in- law at once come from the darkness and caught hold from the left arm and twisted it. My mother-in-law Parkash Kaur picked up a keni which was filled with diesel and lying nearby and poured the same on me. I at CRM No. M-35685 of 2009 -3- once gave a push to my mother-in-law and after getting my hand released from my brother-in-law ran towards Balbir Singh Chacha Saura's house whose house is adjacent to our house and saved myself. .................” no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. Satwinder Kaur/ respondent No.2 / complainant is present in the Court and filed her affidavit. As per her affidavit, she does not wish to pursue the FIR being a family dispute and with the intervention of the respectables and relatives of the parties, the dispute has been settled amicably. In the trial, after presentation of challan charge had been framed and the matter is now pending for prosecution evidence. The offence under Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable, but as per the contents of the FIR, the injuries suffered by the complainant do not attract Section 307 IPC. 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 CRM No. M-35685 of 2009 -4- 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, 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 CRM No. M-35685 of 2009 -5- 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 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 CRM No. M-35685 of 2009 -6- 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.” 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. 29 dated 10.4.2007 under Sections 307, 323, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 24.2.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE