Crl. Misc. No. M-28837 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-28837 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.05.2011 Pankaj @ Pankaj Parkash Soni ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Munish Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Gurwinder Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for quashing the FIR No.30 dated 10.02.2006 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of IPC (Section 304 A added later on), registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2. On 08.02.2006, the complainant was going with Suresh Kumar s/o Mool Chand, who was driving a motorcycle bearing No. PB-10BA-4866, make Passion. Suresh Kumar was ahead of the complainant and was going for his work at Shivpuri and the complainant was also going to meet his brother-in-law Moti Lal at Shivpuri. When Crl. Misc. No. M-28837 of 2010 (O&M) -2- complainant and Suresh Kumar reached Shivpuri Chowk Gali No. 6 ½ then from the north side a car bearing No. PB-08-4641 Make Maruti, which was driven by a young man, who was driving very fast without blowing horn, without any indicator and negligently, hit the side of the motorcycle of Suresh Kumar. As a result of which, Suresh Kumar fell down on the road along with motorcycle and the above said young man took him to CMC Hospital and got him admitted there but Suresh Kumar died on the same day. The young man in the car after getting Suresh Kumar in the hospital, ran away from the hospital. Later on, the name of the driver came to be known as Pankaj. In the above background FIR was registered. Counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court that the legal heirs of Suresh Kumar have been paid Rs.4,56,000/- as full and final settlement as compensation by the MACT. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Counsel for petitioner has further given original compromise in Court today and the same is taken on record as Annexure A1. After investigation, challan was presented and after framing of charge, the matter is now fixed at the stage of evidence. However, the parties have compromised the matter on 25.09.2010 (Annexure P2). As per this compromise, the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables, common friends, nears and dears ones being from the neighbouring localities, so that brotherhood and social harmony prevails. It has been mentioned in the compromise that the petitioner has always stood with the family of Suresh Kumar at the times of need and has been helping them, which has culminated into love and affection between the two families of both the parties. The complainant have been duly Crl. Misc. No. M-28837 of 2010 (O&M) -3- compensated by the petitioner. Now both the parties are in very good relationship with each other. Now complainant does not wish to pursue the present FIR and have no objection if the same is cancelled/quashed. In compliance of order dated 29.9.2010, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Magistrate for recording of their statements. Report of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana has been received in this regard. As per this report, on 18.10.2010, complainant Raj Kumar along with Shashi wife of Suresh Kumar (deceased) got recorded their statements and stated that they have stated that they have arrived at a compromise with accused Pankaj Parkash and the compromise has been reduced in to writing and also produced on record the copy of the compromise as Ex.C1. They further suffered statement that they have no objection if the proceedings against accused be abated. They have stated that the accused has been helping them, which has culminated into love and affection between the two families of both the parties. Accused has also suffered statement to the effect that the accident did not take place with his case. On humanitarian ground, he has helped the family of the deceased Suresh Kumar and they are living in his neighbouring locality and further suffered statement that he has compromised the matter as per compromise Ex.C1. As per statement, the compromise appears to be voluntarily and is without any fear or coercion from any corner regarding effecting of compromise. Original compromise is also taken on record as Annexure A-1. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-28837 of 2010 (O&M) -4- account of rash 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-28837 of 2010 (O&M) -5- 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. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-28837 of 2010 (O&M) -6- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-28837 of 2010 (O&M) -7- the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.” In view of the settled proposition of law and in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the matter, there is no impediment to grant permission to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed to compound the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Consequently, in view of the afore-cited judgments, FIR No.30 dated 10.02.2006 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of IPC (Section 304 A added later on), registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners and the offence is compounded. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 17, 2011 G.Arora