Crl. Misc. No. M-798 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-798 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision :1.3.2011 Dharminder Singh .......... petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. I.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.367 dated 18.12.2007 under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC registered at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. As per the facts of the FIR, Sukhchain Singh son of Lakha Singh is employed in Laxmi Rice Mill Bariwala. On 17.12.2007, his sister Karamjit Kaur and brother-in-law Sewak Singh were going on their motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-04-C- 2893 to their village. Complainant along with Sohan Singh son of Crl. Misc. No. M-798 of 2011 -2- Pritam Singh was going on his motorcycle to his sister's house. His motorcycle was behind the motorcycle of his brother-in-law Sewak Singh. At about 11:00 A.M. when his sister and brother-in-law reached near Green Avenue Kotkapura, one Uno Car bearing registration No. PB-11-J-6199 of silver colour, driven by a boy of 23- 24 years in a rash and negligent manner, which hit the motorcycle of his brother-in-law. In this accident, his brother-in-law and sister suffered injuries. Lateron his sister died due to the injuries suffered in the accident. During the pendency of the trial, a compromise has been effected between the parties. In compliance of the order dated 12.1.2011, report from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot has been received. As per this report, statement of complainant SukhchainSingh has been recorded. He has stated that on his statement FIR FIR No.367 dated 18.12.2007 under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC was registered. In the accident, his sister Karamjit Kaur @ Kati died. He has compromised the matter by writing compromise, which is Ex. C1 and receipt Ex. C-2. Accused Dharminder Singh has agreed to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- in all in the said two compensation cases titled as Gursewak Singh vs. Dharminder Singh and the other case with same titled having claimants Natha Singh and Jasvir Kaur. As per compromise, Rs.2,50,000/- has been received by the complainant and receipt has been given to Dharminder Singh. On the basis of compromise, the complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed with all consequential proceedings. Crl. Misc. No. M-798 of 2011 -3- Statement of Sewak Singh @ Gursewak Singh husband of Karamjit Kaur @ Kati was recorded. In his statement, he has stated that he was eye witness of the accident. In the accident, his wife died. Now they have compromised by writing co mpromise Ex. C1 and receipt Ex. C2 vide which their claim have been satisfied by the accused. After the compromise, he does not wish to pursue the FIR. Statement of Natha Singh son of Lal Singh, father of Karamjit Kaur deceased has also been recorded. As per his statement, Natha Singh @ Lakha Singh and Jasvir Kaur received Rs. 2,50,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- will be paid within three months. He has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Statement of Dharminder Singh, accused has also been recorded. As per this statement, he has compromised the matter vide compromise Ex. C-1 and receipt Ex.C-2. Due to compromise, claim of the complainant has been settled. FIR of the present case was lodged against the un-known person on the basis of statement made by Sukhchain Singh son of Natha Singh. In the accident death of his sister Karamjit Kaur @ Kati took place. Now they have compromised the matter by writing compromise Ex. C1 and receipt Ex. C-2. As per the affidavit, statement of Dharaminder Sinigh accused/ petitioner has been recorded. Statement of Sohan Singh son of Pritam Singh, who is the eye witness of the occurrence has also been recorded. As per the affidavit filed, the parties have entered into compromise with the Crl. Misc. No. M-798 of 2011 -4- intervention of respectables without any pressure, threat or coercion. The complainant party has no objection if the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-798 of 2011 -5- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-798 of 2011 -6- 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 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.” The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR under Section 304A IPC, which is non-compoundable offence. However, in view of the report submitted by the learned Chiefe Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Crl. Misc. No. M-798 of 2011 -7- 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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.367 dated 18.12.2007 under Sections 304- A, 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC registered at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. 1.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE