Crl. Misc. No. M-21814 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-21814 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 31.05.2011 Mohan Singh and another ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Malkiat Singh Mohali, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Tabria, Advocate for the respondent. Sh. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the impugned FIR No.63 dated 19.05.2010 under Sections 308/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code'), registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 26.07.2010 (Annexure P-2). Brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2. On 19.05.2010, when the Crl. Misc. No. M-21814 of 2010 (O&M) -2- complainant was going towards his field his brothers had a scuffle with each other. Thereafter, Mohan Singh gave hockey blow on the head of the complainant with an intention to kill him. The complainant in order to save himself, forwarded Jinda but hockey hit on his head after hitting Jinda. The petitioner gave hockey blows time and again. Wasakha Singh gave a wooden stick blow on the right shoulder of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant raised lalkara. On this, the sons of the complainant came at the field but the petitioners did not stop and started beating him continuously. Thereafter, they ran away from the spot along with their weapons.. In the above background, FIR was registered against the petitioners. However, after presentation of the challan, the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectable, common friends and neighbours of the parties. Both the parties are real brothers and are living in the same locality. The respectable of the town common friends and neighbourers, in order to promote ever lasting peace, amity and harmony between the parties have arrived at a compromise so that bad blood and feud between the parties come to an end forever. They further undertakes that in future they will live together as brotherly and will not take any action against anybody and will avoid all the litigations and further undertakes to live in peaceful Crl. Misc. No. M-21814 of 2010 (O&M) -3- manner and will not repeat such type of act and will not file any case against each other in any court. The complainant has further stated that he does not want to proceed with the above said case and has no objection if the same will be cancelled. Original compromise is also taken on record as Annexure A-1. Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by his counsel. He has stated through his counsel that the compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-2 ), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise Learned State counsel has argued that the injuries suffered by the complainant are simple in nature and the parties are real brothers. 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-21814 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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, Crl. Misc. No. M-21814 of 2010 (O&M) -5- 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-21814 of 2010 (O&M) -6- 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.63 dated 19.05.2010 under Sections 308/323/506/34 of the Code, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 31, 2011 G.Arora