Crl. Misc. No. M-3571 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3571 of 2011 Date of decision : 28.04.2011 Manjinder Singh and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Hitesh Sood, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Guninder Singh Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the DDR No.13 dated 06.03.2007(Annexure P-1) in F.I.R No. 16 dated 08.03.2007 under Sections 452, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Sudhar, District Ludhiana (Annexure P2) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P-3). As per D.D.R, on 06.03.2007 at about 1:00 P.M., complainant son Ramandip who was working in Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana was going from his house to perform his duty then at about 1:15 P.M., he has been rounded up in the way by Pinder, Soni, Ubhi Chakki Wala, Harji, Inderjit Singh, Manjinder Singh, Deepi, Avtar Singh and 5-6 other persons gave a sota blow and when the complainant and other persons went there to know the facts, all the above accused ran away from the spot. Thereafter, when the Crl. Misc. No. M-3571 of 2011 [2] complainant was coming back to his house on scooter then on the way Pinder Singh came from the front side in Nova vehicle and out of the vehicle Pinder Singh armed with Base Ball, Soni Ubhi Wala armed with danda, Harji armed with Danda, Manjinder Singh armed with Kirch, Deepi armed with iron pipe, Avtar Singh armed with Base Ball along with 5-6 persons came there. Pittar Singh gave a base-ball blow on the shoulder of the complainant. Soni Ubhi Wala gave his danda blow upon the left foot, Manjinder singh gave a Kirch blow on the forehead which hit the eye of the complainant. Harji armed with danda blow upon the complainant which hit on the left ankle and one of their companions gave a clenched fist blow on the nose of the complainant and then they swept the complainant on the road due to which he got injuries on the fingers of the complainant on his right hand. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. However, after the investigation, challan was presented and the charges were framed and the trial was pending for prosecution evidence. During the pendency, both the parties have arrived at a compromise (Annexure P2) with the intervention of Panchayat of the village and other respectable persons. Respondent No. 2 also filed his affidavit which is annexed as Annexure P4. As per the compromise, that earlier some differences took place between both the parties and during the period of these differences, both the parties got their cases registered against each other. The complainant have registered the above said DDR and the petitioners have registered the cross F.I.R No. 16 dated 8.3.2007 at Police Station Sudhar against the complainant and others. The challans were presented in the Court against the parties and the cases of both the parties Crl. Misc. No. M-3571 of 2011 [3] are pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jagraon. The parties have now amicably settled all their disputes and want to live in peace, love and mutual brotherhood. Now both the parties are not willing to initiate any sort of proceedings against each other. Both the parties are agreed and bound to close their above respective cases and do not want to continue the same. The compromise has been effected with sweet will and without any pressure. In compliance of order dated 04.02.2011, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Jagraon has sent its report. As per report, in DDR No. 13 dated 06.03.2007, the presence of accused Inderjit Singh is yet to be procured but the statements of the complainant-Darbara Singh and that of accused party i.e Avtar Singh, Parminder Singh, Sarabjot Singh, Harjinder Singh, Manjinder Singh, Hardeep Singh of village Jodhana except Inderjit Singh have been recorded who have admitted the factum of compromise The genuineness of compromise which was alleged to have been executed has not been disputed by both the parties. This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur RCR (Crl) 2010(1) 256 has observed : “Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3 and 4-Non-compoundable offence-Of the seven accused, complainant entering into compromise with one accused-Proceedings qua one accused only quashed by High Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C” 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-3571 of 2011 [4] 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-3571 of 2011 [5] 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 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-3571 of 2011 [6] 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) and law laid down by this Court in Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur (supra) , DDR No.13 dated 06.03.2007(Annexure P-1) in F.I.R No. 16 dated 08.03.2007 under Sections 452, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Sudhar, District Ludhiana (Annexure P2) are quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 28, 2011 G.Arora