Crl. Misc.No. M- 1951 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M- 1951 of 2011 Date of decision : 27.04.2011 Pardeep Singh and another ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl..A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1 Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.138 dated 06.07.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 452, 308, 323, 427, 506, 148, 149, 294 of IPC, registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2). Brief facts of the case are that as per the F.I.R, at about 11.30 a.m., Pardeep Singh alias Ladi (petitioner No. 1) along with 7/8 persons came in front of the complainant shop. Petitioner No. 1 and Jora Singh petitioner No. 2 were carrying iron rod and their other companion were carried kirpans and gandasis. Petitioner No. 1 raised lalkara that complainant should not be spared and he has to be killed. Thereafter, all the Crl. Misc.No. M- 1951 of 2011 -2- above said persons along with their respective weapons entered in the shop of the complainant. Petitioner No. 1 gave a iron blow with intention to kill the complainant on his head and the complainant in order to save himself, raised his right arm immediately, then rod hit near his wrist and petitioner NO. 2 gave a iron rod blow with intention to kill the complainant and he raised his left arm, which hit below the elbow of the complainant. All these persons with their respective weapons blindly caused injuries on both left arms and legs of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant raised raula Mar Ditta Mar Ditta. The reason for the enmity is that 3 months back petitioner No. 1 fought with Rakesh Sethi and in that fight petitioner No. 1 suffered injuries and he falsely named the complainant in that F.I.R. In the above background, F.I.R was registered by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. However, during the pendency of investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the respectable persons (Annexure P2). An affidavit of the complainant is also on record (Annexure P3). As per compromise, the matter has been compromised and the complainant do not want to pursue the matter further against the petitioners and has no objection if the F.I.R is cancelled by the police as well as by the competent Court. Both the parties have further undertaken not to file any Civil or Cirminal case against each other regarding the above said incident In compliance of the order dated 21.01.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and get their statements recorded. Status report has been submitted with regard to the validity of compromise. As per the report of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, both parties appeared before the Court and made their statements. As per the statement Crl. Misc.No. M- 1951 of 2011 -3- of the complainant, he has admitted that he had executed an affidavit in favour of the accused regarding effecting of compromise. Accused Pardeep Singh and Jora Singh also appeared in Court for the purpose of getting their statements recorded to authenticate the compromise effected between the parties. From the statements of both the parties, the compromise appears to be genuine. Learned State counsel, on instructions from Head Constable Sahib Singh has informed that the cancellation report has been prepared by the Police in this case. 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 Crl. Misc.No. M- 1951 of 2011 -4- 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. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear- Crl. Misc.No. M- 1951 of 2011 -5- 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), 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.138 dated 06.07.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 452, 308, 323, 407, 506, 148, 149, 294 of IPC, registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana Crl. Misc.No. M- 1951 of 2011 -6- is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 27, 2011 G.Arora