IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-3714 of 2011 Dated: 29.04.2011 Ram Sharan @ Dalla and Others ..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana **** RITU BAHRI, J.(ORAL) This order will also dispose of Crl. Misc. No. M-3688 of 2011 as the same has arisen out of the cross version of FIR No. 68, dated 24.4.2005 under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC. This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 68 dated 24.4.2005 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Shahzadpur, District Amabala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P- 3). "Sukhdev Singh son of Amar Nath caste Jat of our village had given some bara area to Pawan Kumar son of Maya Ram caste Dhiman on rent and had installed a flour mill, the roof of which had damaged. Sukhdev Singh wanted to get this place vacated but Pawan Kumar etc. did not vacate this place. That, a case is going on between both the parties in the court with regard to that place and the court has issued a stay on this area. Some days ago, Pawan Kumar etc. had removed the roof of the room built on this land and the Crl. Misc. No. M-3714 of 2011 -2- mill was removed and kept outside. Yesterday, on 23.4.2005, Pawan Kumar etc. tried to install the roof on this disputed house. I and my son Mal Singh were standing there and a dispute occurred betwen Sukhdev Singh etc. and Pawan Kumar etc. with regard to laying the roof and my son Mal Singh said that court has passed a stay order on this land so they should not lay the roof. Yesterday on 23.4.2005 at about 7 PM I and my brother Karam Singh were present in our bara that Phool Chand son of Kartara Ram caste Jat, Mukesh son of Phool Chand and Sanjiv son of Banta Singh and Leela son of Banta Singh, Karan Singh son of Kartara Ram caste Jat and Ram Sharan @ Dalla son of Banarsi caste Jheer, residents of Deh were supporting Pawan Kumar etc. for laying the roof on this land. With this grudge, they came. Phool Chand came abusing and behind him Mukesh son of Phool Chand armed with iron rod and Sanjiv son of Banta Singh also armed with iron rod and Leela son of Banta Singh armed with danda, Karan Singh son of Kartara armed with stick, Ram Sharan @ Dalla armed with danda came with common intention and the very moment Phool Chand caught hold of me and Mukesh gave an iron rod blow on my head and Sanjiv Kumar gave a blow of iron rod to my brother Karam Singh which hit on his left arm and Karan Singh gave a stick blow to my brother Karam Singh on his head and Leela gave a danda blow on my arm. That on hearing the noise of fight, my son Mal Singh came forward to save us. Then Ram Sharan gave a danda blow to my son which hit near his left eye and then Sanjiv Kumar gave a blow of iron rod on my head and I fell down. We raised cries of save, save, upon which Jasbir Singh son of Puran Singh and Bal Singh son of Dev Singh caste Jat and many other villagers gathered and came, who saved us from the assailants, Crl. Misc. No. M-3714 of 2011 -3- otherwise they would have caused much more injuies and all the abovesaid went away alongwith their respective weapons while saying that, "Today you have been saved, whenever another opportunity is found, you will be killed". Thereafter, my nephew Jaswant Singh also came to the spot, who took us to GH Naraingarh, wherefrom the Doctor referred me to PGI Chandigarh, where I have got my statement recorded to you. That the abovesaid assailants have caused us injuries illegally and have also threatened to kill. In this background FIR was registered. In the reply filed by the DSP on behalf of respondent No. 1 the facts are undisputed. In compliance of order dated 4.2.2011, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Naraingarh has sent the report, in which all the accused and complainants had stated that they have compromised the matter in the presence of village Panchayat and respectables. They had forgotten their differences and no ill will is there between them. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-3714 of 2011 -4- 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 Crl.Misc. No. M-3714 of 2011 -5- 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-3714 of 2011 -6- 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), FIR No. 68 under Section 24.4.2005 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC and cross case registered under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC at Police Station Shahzadpur, District Amabala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-3) is quashed qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) 29.04.2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)