IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-16206 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:29.10.2010 Mohinder Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) Crl. M. No.51282-M of 2010 In pursuance to the order dated 4.10.2010, the statements of respondents No.4 and 5 have duly been recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. Copies thereof have also been placed on record. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of. Crl. M. No.16206-M of 2010 The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.19 dated 22.4.1994 registered under Sections 323,324,326,148,149 IPC at Police Station Dehlon, Ludhiana as well as conviction order dated 7.9.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by Pritpal CRM M-16206 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Kaur widow of Santokh Singh resident of Dhurkot, P.S. Dehlon, Ludhiana, on the allegations of causing injuries to her, following which FIR No.19 dated 22.4.1994 registered under Sections 323,324,326,148,149 IPC at Police Station Dehlon, Ludhiana was registered against the petitioners. Vide order dated 7.9.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, the petitioners were held guilty, convicted and sentenced. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal challenging the said order in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The said appeal is pending. Complainant-Pritpal Kaur has since expired. During the pendency of the appeal, due to intervention of the respectable of the area, the matter has been compromised with the legal heirs of the complainant-Pritpal Kaur, who has since expired. Vide order dated 27.5.2010, the parties were directed to be present in the Court in order to verify the genuineness of the compromise. However, on 4.10.2010 vide Crl. M. No.51282 of 2010 filed on behalf of the petitioners, it was stated that respondent No.5 is not able to be present in the Court or to submit his affidavit as he is in judicial custody. Accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana was directed to record the statements of the complainant and other aggrieved persons and submit his report as to whether the compromise is genuine or not. In pursuance to the order dated 4.10.2010, report from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been received submitting therein that the statements of respondents No.4 and 5, who are the legal heirs of the complainant-Pritpal Kaur have duly been recorded. It is further submitted in the report that respondents No.4 and 5 have stated in their statements that their mother Pritpal Kaur-complainant had died leaving behind them as her CRM M-16206 of 2010 (O&M) -3- legal heirs and their father had already died. They further stated that they have compromised with the accused persons namely Mohinder Singh, Amru, Paramjit Singh, Avtar Singh and Harbans Singh with the intervention of the respectables and Panchayat members and they have decided to bury the ill will and they have no objection if the offences are compounded in view of the compromise between them and that they do not want to pursue the litigation in appeal filed by the accused persons. They further stated that they have no objection if the petition of the petitioners is accepted for the sake of peace in the village and the ill will is buried for ever and they have also no objection if the aforesaid FIR against the opposite party alongwith subsequent proceedings and conviction and sentence order dated 7.9.2006 passed by the Court of JMIC, Ludhiana is quashed in view of the compromise between the parties. They further stated that they have given their statements in full senses and without any pressure and they they have already filed an affidavit dated 21.5.2010 before the High Court. In view of the report submitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, it is apparent that the matter has been compromised and respondents No.4 and 5, who are the legal heirs of the complainant- Pritpal Kaur have no objection if the FIR in question and conviction order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana is set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the said charges. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminl) 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A CRM M-16206 of 2010 (O&M) -4- IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, as well as order of conviction. This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjan and another, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 who relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. And another, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:- “ The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences CRM M-16206 of 2010 (O&M) -5- notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” In view of the settled proposition of law and taking into account the matter has been compromised with the intervention of respectable of the village, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise to allow the parties to live amicably which shall reduce the friction in the society and promote peace and harmony. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as compromise effected between the parties, parties are allowed to compound the offence. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. Thereafter, the Appellate Court shall pass appropriate orders in the light of permission granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly the present petition is disposed of in the above term. 29.10.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE