Crl. Misc. No. M-10626 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-10626 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.04.2011 Anil Kumar and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Arshdeep Singh Sivia, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Guninder Singh Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Sansar Kundu, 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.4 dated 04.02.2011(Annexure P-1) under Sections 363-A/34/120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Kot Dharmu, District Mansa and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure P-2). Before adverting in to the merits of the case, it would first be necessary to point out the contents of the F.I.R. The petitioners as well as complainant are in relation and have no previous enmity with each other. The marriage of Balwinder Kaur-complainant was solemnised with Harbans Singh, Caste SC r/o Village Bhamo Kalan, District Mansa. After 3 years of marriage, one son was born from the wedlock whose name is Harjiot Singh. She was blessed with one more son whose name is Harwinder Singh. On Crl. Misc. No. M-10626 of 2011(O&M) -2- 04.02.2011, when she was going to meet her husbands maternal uncle along with her younger son, one couple come in an Esteem Car and snatched her son. The complainant shouted on the spot and told that she can identify the above said couple if brought before her. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of the investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the respectables, friends, colleagues and relatives of both the parties. As per the compromise/affidavit (Annexure P2), matter has been compromised and now complainant does not want to pursue the case against the petitioners and does not want to give any statement against them in the Court. She has also no objection if the F.I.R got registered by her is quashed or cancelled. Counsel for respondent No. 2 appeared in the Court and filed an affidavit of the complainant to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties with their own free and sweet will and without any pressure from any side and in the presence of respectables, friends and relatives from both sides, they have settled their dispute. It has further been stated in the affidavit that respondent No. 2 that she does not want to proceed further with the present case and has no objection, if the above said F.I.R is cancelled or quashed. So, it appears that the compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. Copy of compromise 29.03.2011 is annexed as Annexure P-2. As per the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, the matter has been compromised and bears the signatures of the deponent and the same was reduced into writing with the consent of the complainant without any Crl. Misc. No. M-10626 of 2011(O&M) -3- compulsion etc. The affidavit is taken on record as Annexure A-1. 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-10626 of 2011(O&M) -4- 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 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 :- Crl. Misc. No. M-10626 of 2011(O&M) -5- “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 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), FIR No.4 dated 04.02.2011(Annexure P-1) under Sections 363-A/34/120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Kot Dharmu, District Mansa is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 07, 2011 G.Arora