Criminal Misc. No. M-743 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-743 of 2011 Date of decision:- 27.5.2011 Rajbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.194 dated 14.8.2005 under Sections 279,427 and 304-A IPC, registered at Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered on the statement of Shiv Kumar that on 13.8.2005 Balbir Singh Sharma father-in-law of complainant had gone to his work at Everyone Cycle Factory at Dhandari Kalan Ludhiana. When the complainant reached reached near Dhandari Railway Station, he saw that his father-in-law was going on his scooter bearing No. PB-10AY-4315. The complainant was going behind him on his car. Then one jeep Mohindra bearing registration No. HR-19A-1016 driven rashly, negligently and without blowing horn by its driver, hit the scooter of Balbir Singh Sharma while overtaking the vehicle. Balbir Singh Sharma got multiple injuries. Thereafter, complainant and driver of the said jeep got him admitted in Appollo Hospital Sherpur, Ludhiana. Criminal Misc. No. M-743 of 2011 -2- The name of the driver was Rajbir Singh. Balbir Singh Sharma expired in the hospital. FIR was registered. After investigation challan was presented and charge was framed. Now when the case is fixed for evidence of prosecution, the legal heirs of deceased Balbir Singh Sharma, complainant and petitioner have entered into compromise and it was agreed that the complainant will withdraw the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Copy of compromise dated 03.11.2010 is (Annexure P-3). Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana dated 29.7.2009 whereby the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been given on account of death of Balbir Singh Sharma. It has been held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by Rajbir Singh driver of jeep Mahindra bearing registration No. HR-19A-1016. Compromise (Annexure A-1) and MACT judgement (Annexure A-2) are taken on record. In compliance of order dated 14.1.2011 status report has been submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. On 16.5.2011 statements of complainant and accused have been recorded. Complainant Shiv Kumar Sharma stated that he is the eye witness of the incident and deceased was his father-in-law. Compromise has been effected with the accused with the intervention of respectable. Compromise is genuine and valid and is for the benefit of both the parties. Accused Rajbir Singh has also made statement to the same effect. In view of status report it is held that compromise is genuine and in the interest of both the parties. Reference is being made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy versus State of Karnataka and another 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 501, in this case a compromise has been effected in a case of road accident, in which there was a death of seven years old child on account of rash Criminal Misc. No. M-743 of 2011 -3- and negligent driving. The accused was convicted and sentenced by the Court of the Sessions Judge for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. During the pendency of appeal in the Supreme Court, a compromise was effected between the parties. It was held that the offence under Section 304-A IPC is non-compoundable as it is not covered by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Reference was made to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, where in cases of conviction in non- compoundable offences, the parties were allowed to compound the case in special facts and circumstances. The sentence awarded was reduced while maintaining the conviction. The said principles have been followed by the Supreme Court in Surendra Nath Mohanty and another versus State of Orissa 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 683, which was disposed of by a Three-Judge Bench, wherein in respect of a conviction under Section 326 IPC the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone together with fine. Of course, as mentioned hereinbefore, the said decision was rendered in the facts of the said case. Reference was also made to two other decisions of the Supreme Court in i) Ram Lal and another versus State of J & K 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 92 : and ii) Bachhu Singh versus State of U.P. 2000(10) SCC 313, wherein the same formula was applied. As far as the other proposition is concerned, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Shetty versus State of Karnataka and another 2004(13) SCC 375 where the conviction was altered from Section 326 to 324 IPC and the offence was permitted to be compounded. There is yet another decision in the case of Y. Suresh Babu versus State of A.P. (2005)1 SCC 347 which deals directly with a conviction under Section 326 IPC. The Supreme Court allowed the parties to compound the case in the special facts and circumstances of the case, but also directed that the same was not to be treated as a precedent. “What Criminal Misc. No. M-743 of 2011 -4- emerges from all these decisions is that even if an offence is not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Court may, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction. In the present case, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The sentence as far as conviction under Section 279 IPC is concerned has been set aside by the High Court. What remains after the judgment of the High Court is the conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC wherein the appellant was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In our view, this is one of those cases where instead of confining the appellant in prison, the interest of justice will be better served if he is made to compensate the family of the deceased on account of the loss suffered by them. In the present case the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- by holding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner Rajbir Singh. This fact is not disputed. 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 :- Criminal Misc. No. M-743 of 2011 -5- “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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-743 of 2011 -6- 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 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) and Puttaswamy versus State of Karnataka and another (supra), FIR No.194 dated 14.8.2005 under Sections 279,427 and 304-A IPC, registered at Police Criminal Misc. No. M-743 of 2011 -7- Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. It is directed that Rs.20,000/- be paid as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased by the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. May 27, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE