Crl. Misc. No. M-33832 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33832 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision :1.3.2011 Devinder Singh & others .......... petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Ms. Deepika Kalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Advocate for complainant / respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the cross version dated 16.10.2008, under Sections 323, 324, 427, 452, 148, 149 IPC and subsequently added Section 326 IPC in FIR No. 149 dated 15.10.2008 registered at Police Station Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. The FIR was got registered by Resham Singh, wherein he has alleged that on 14.10.2008 at about 10:00 p.m. he was sleeping in the house and he woke up after hearing loud voice. He found that Crl. Misc. No. M-33832 of 2010 -2- the accused / petitioners had come to his house armed with Kirpans and gandasis and entered his house. Satnam Singh gave a blow of gandasi on his head, as a result of which he fell down. Kewal Singh and Aman gave blows of injuries to him. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there was a dispute over a some piece of land. The parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectables of the village and the society. Satnam Singh, complainant in a cross case registered under Sections 452, 323, 324, 427, 148, 149 IPC (subsequently added section 326 IPC) in FIR No. 149 dated 15.10.2008 and Kuldeep Singh injured are present in the Court and they have been identified by HC Nand Lal. They have filed their affidavits, alleging that they have compromised the matter with the with the intervention of the respectables of the village and the society without any pressure, threat or coercion. The she has no objection if the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners. 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-33832 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-33832 of 2010 -4- 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. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-33832 of 2010 -5- 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.” This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256, has been pleased to lay down as under :- “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 power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur (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), the cross version dated 16.10.2008, under Sections 323, 324, 427, 452, 148, 149 IPC and subsequently added Section 326 IPC in FIR No. 149 dated 15.10.2008 registered at Police Station Crl. Misc. No. M-33832 of 2010 -6- Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 1.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE