Crl. Misc. No. M-33228 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33228 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.05.2011 Amit Kumar @ Sanny ......Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, A.A.G, Haryana Mr. Virender Soni, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.478 dated 25.09.2006 under Sections 294/354/506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') , registered at Police Station Civil Line, Karnal (Annexure P1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.09.2006, when the complainant was present at her house with her mother and on this brother-in-law of Sunny came to their house and stated that sister of Sunny have called you as she has some work with you. So, she went to the house of Sunny, who is her neighbour. When the complainant asked about the sister of Sunny, he told her that she is in bathroom. When she went to bathroom, she found Sunny there Crl. Misc. No. M-33228 of 2010 (O&M) -2- and he held her hand with bad intention and tried to break the knot of her Salwar and tried to kiss her after holding her, on which she get her hand released and run to her home. She told this thing to her mother and on 24.09.2006, in the evening time, Sunny was gazing the complainant while sitting outside the house and started bad names to the complainant and her family. In the above background, the FIR was registered against the petitioner. After framing of charges, the case is now fixed for recording of evidence. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, both the parties arrived at a compromise on 21.10.2010 (Annexure P2). As per compromise, on 10.10.2010, a panchayat was convened in respect of above said case in which both the parties were heard. The complainant is completely satisfied and the petitioner has accepted that the above said case was registered due to some misunderstanding between both the parties and complainant has no objection if the FIR is quashed. It was further agreed that complainant will give statement before the Court, if needed. Compromise has been written in presence of both the parties and both the parties have read over and understood the compromise. Counsel for respondent No. has put in appearance and filed the reply of respondent No. 2 by way of short affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that since both the parties are neighbours and the matter has been amicably settled with the intervention of respectable of the society and relatives, the complainant has no objection if the FIR is quashed qua petitioner. Even though offences under Sections 294/354 of the Code are non-compoundable, however, keeping in view of the fact Crl. Misc. No. M-33228 of 2010 (O&M) -3- that respondent No. 2 has now got married and settled in her life with her in-laws family, this Court has no hesitation to accept that the compromise has been arrived in a just and fair manner. 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-33228 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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.” 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-33228 of 2010 (O&M) -5- 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) , this Court has no hesitation to quash the present FIR in view of compromise entered between the parties. FIR No.478 dated 25.09.2006 under Sections 294/354/506 of the Code, registered at Police Station Civil Line, Karnal (Annexure P1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 18, 2011 G.Arora