Crl. Misc.No. M-5369 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-5369 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.05.2011 Amit alias Monu and others ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) Quashing of FIR No. 161 dated 16.12.2010 under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Division No. 4, Ludhiana City is being sought by way of compromise (Annexure P2). On 16.12.2010 at about 2.00 AM, Sachin, complainant left with his nephew Deepak and brother Sudarshan for the Railway Station, Ludhiana on foot and when they reached Gandhi Market, Ludhiana four boys on two motorcycles came and after showing knife snatched Nokia Mobile-1600 having No. 9872795076 alongwith Rs. 4200/- (belonging to the complainant) and also Samsung Mobile having No. 9876382127 (belonging to Sudarshan) and threatened to kill them if they made a noise. On inquiry it was found that the names of these boys were Amit alias Monu son of Raj Sabarwal, Rohit son of Parveen and Shaner son of Ram Pal. The name of the fourth boy was came to be known as Sagar son of Madan Lal. In the above background, the FIR was registered. During the pendency of the investigation, a compromise has been Crl. Misc.No. M-5369 of 2011 (O&M) -2- effected between the parties (Annexure P2). In compliance of the order dated 21.02.2011, a status report has been submitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana. The statement of the complainant Sachin son of Jaswant Singh has been recorded that they have reached a compromise (Exhibit CA). On 14.03.2011, the accused Amit alias Monu, Rohit and Sagar alongwith Shanker made a statement that they had reached compromise. They were duly identified by Mr. Prabhjot Singh Arora, Advocate. 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 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-5369 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 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 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 compromise effected between the parties and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Crl. Misc.No. M-5369 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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. 161 dated 16.12.2010 under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Division No. 4, Ludhiana City is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 27, 2011 amodh