Crl. Misc. No. M-3231 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3231 of 2011 Date of decision : 21.04.2011 Balwinder Singh @ Papu and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Deepak Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr.S.K. Singla, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.68 dated 18.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 452, 448, 511, 506, 427, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Barnala and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 29.01.2011 (Annexure P-3), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is doing property dealer work. On 18.03.2009 at about 3.30 P.M, complainant and his son and along with family ladies were present at their house then Kewal Arora, Narinder Arora, Balwinder Singh, Joginder Singh, Kelash and 4/5 unknown persons came on Jypsy bearing No.PB-47B-7295 and Motor Cycle No.PB 10-BC-9802. They were armed with Rods, Lathies, Arms and started to broke the gate of the complainant's plot which was towards the street and Crl. Misc. No. M-3231 of 2011 -2- entered the plot and entered the gate towards complainant house forcibly and raised lalkaras and threatened the complainant and his family members. Thereafter, the accused bolted the door of the complainant house from inside even than they were throwing the brick towards the complainant. The complainant and his family members went up on their house to save himself and his family and the complainant fired in the air from his licensed gun 12 bors. Then all the accused went from the spot on Gypsy and Motor Cycle and left weapons at the spot. Motive of grudge is that accused Joginder Singh and Balwinder Singh have purchased many plots from Saroj Bala who claimed that this plot is purchased by them. Due to this, they with intention to take forcible possession of their plot war at their house and tried to take possession of complainant plot. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. During the pendency of investigation, challan was presented by the police, vide annexure P-1 and offence under the Arms Act were deleted against the petitioners. F.I.R. Challan was not presented against Kewal Arora, Narinder Arora, Kelash as they were declared innocent. The cross case was registered by petitioner Nos. 1 to 5. Both the petitioner and respondent belongs to local police Barnala and socially meet each other and now they do not want to keep enmity in the minds and want to live peacefully in harmony with each other. As per the affidavit of respondent No. 2, mother of respondent No. 2 has undertaken to withdraw the civil suit filed against the accused- petitioners pending in the Barnala Court with regards to plot of the accused- petitioners so that the compromise can be effected between the parties. It has been further agreed by both the parties that they will file the quashing Crl. Misc. No. M-3231 of 2011 -3- petition immediately before this Court and both will gave the required statements with the pleasure and free consent. They are further bound to make signatures and thumb impressions as both the parties want to live peacefully. In compliance of order dated 02.02.2011, Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala has sent its report. As per this report, statements of both the parties have been recorded in which they have specifically mentioned that they have entered into compromise at the instance of village panchayat and relatives which was reduced into writing on 29.01.2011 and placed on record the original compromise (Ex.C1). So, the compromise is held to be fair and genuine. Broad guidelines have been lid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh ad 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-3231 of 2011 -4- 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 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-3231 of 2011 -5- 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. 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.68 dated 18.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 452, 448, 511, 506, 427, 148, Crl. Misc. No. M-3231 of 2011 -6- 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Barnala is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 21, 2011 G.Arora