Crl. Misc. No. M-33277 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33277 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision :1.3.2011 Harvinder Singh @ Babba & others .......... petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. G.S. Mann, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing Rapat No. 24 dated 19.1.2001 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 452, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 3 of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at police station Guru Har Sahai District Ferozepur in case FIR No. 4 dated 19.1.2001, under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC, Section 3 of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at police station Guru Har Sahai District Ferozepur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Crl. Misc. No. M-33277 of 2010 -2- As per FIR, respondent No.2 Chhinda Singh son of Kehar Singh, on 17.1.2001 at about 6:00 P.M., when reached neare the house of Sohan Lal son of Munshi Ram, in the meantime Gurdeep Singh son of Sham Singh armed with sword, Jaswinder Singh, empty handed, Kewal Singh armed with sword sons of Harbans Singh, Surjit Singh son of Major Singh armed with Dandassa, Major Singh son of Jaggar Singh armed with Takua, Swaran Singh son of Minder Singh armed with axe, Minder Singh son of Jaggar Singh armed with dang, ass Singh son of Mal Singh, armed with daang, Vijay Kumar son of Har Bhagwan, armed with Dang came and inflicted injuries on his person with their respective weapons. In this background FIR No.4 was recorded against the petitioners on 17.1.2001. A report No. 24 dated 19.1.2011 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 452, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 3 of ST/SC Prevention of Atrocities Act was recorded on the statement made by Jaggar Singh, which was out of the same incident on 17.1.2001 against the petitioners. During the pendency of this trial, compromise has been effected between the parties. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of Major Singh-respondent No.2. He is also present in person in Court and has been duly identified by his counsel. As per the affidavit the dispute has been settled between the parties with the intervention of respectables and Panchyat. He has no objection if the Rapat in question is 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-33277 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-33277 of 2010 -4- 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 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-33277 of 2010 -5- 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 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), Rapat No. 24 dated 19.1.2001 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 452, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 3 of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at police station Guru Har Sahai District Ferozepur in Crl. Misc. No. M-33277 of 2010 -6- case FIR No. 4 dated 19.1.2001, under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC, Section 3 of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at police station Guru Har Sahai District Ferozepur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is quashed on the basis of compromise. The petition stands disposed of. 1.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE