Crl. Misc. No. M-37836 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-37836 of 2010 Date of decision : 28.03.2011 Dr. G.S. Passi and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Guninder Singh Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, 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.208 dated 11.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 452, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station A. division, District Amritsar and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 17.11.2010(Annexure P-2). Brief facts of the case are that as per the FIR, the complainant is doing the work as painter in the shop of Ashirwad Palace Walia Aryan Store Opp. Batala Road. On 08.09.2010 at about 8.30 P.M, when the complainant along with his brother-in-law Amardeep Singh son of Manjeet Singh Caste Ahluwalia 68-B, Gali No. 1, Husanpura, Amritsar was sitting in his shop, petitioner came along with his 5/6 collecks holding gandasi in their hands and small datar and empty bottles of soda and raised a lalkara that they may Crl. Misc. No. M-37836 of 2010 -2- be caught hold . Petitioner attacked with gandasi upon the complainant and he suffered injuries. There was some dispute regarding payment in the above said FIR. Subsequently, the compromise was affected. Reply has been filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police East, Amritsar City. As per the reply after the incident on 08.09.2010, both the injured were examined medically on 09.09.2010 and thereafter a criminal case mentioned above was registered against all the accused. Statements of the injured and other eye witness were recorded. All the accused were yet to be arrested and weapon used b them at the time of incident are yet to be recovered. However, during the pendency of the trial, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relative and respectables from both the sides. As per the compromise (Annexure P2),the complainant does not want to take any action against any person and has no objection, if the above case is cancelled. Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by his counsel and also filed an affidavit in the Court. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. Copy of compromise dated 17.11.2010 is annexed as Annexure P2. As per the affidavit filed by Gurpreet Singh, 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 compulsion etc. The original compromise 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-37836 of 2010 -3- 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 matters, commercial transactions and other such Crl. Misc. No. M-37836 of 2010 -4- 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. 2 It is advisable that in the disputes where Crl. Misc. No. M-37836 of 2010 -5- 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.208 dated 11.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 452, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station A. division, District Amritsar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE March 28, 2011 G.Arora