Criminal Misc. No. M- 855 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 855 of 2011 Date of decision:- 26.4.2011 Mishra Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. S.S. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mrs. Charanjeet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.118 dated 02.9.2010 under Sections 165,511,458,148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Sangrur (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, petitioner Mishra Singh on 3.9.2010 through 8-10 persons picked up the complainant from his house and he was dragged and caused him injuries. In this background, the FIR was registered. During the pending proceedings, compromise was effected between the parties on 29.9.2010 with the intervention of respectable of the locality. In compliance of order dated 13.1.2011, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Criminal Misc. No. M- 855 of 2011 -2- Class, Sangrur has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, parties appeared before the court and recorded their statements. As per statement of complainant he has entered into compromise with accused Mishra Singh only as the remaining 12 unknown persons were not traced. However, he did not pursue any kind of litigation with respect to FIR in question against Mishra Singh or the other 12 unknown persons. The compromise deed is Ex.CX which is signed by him as well as Mishra Singh and witnesses. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure and he has no objection if the FIR in question is cancelled against Mishra Singh and other 12 unknown persons. Statement of accused Mishra Singh was also recorded to the same effects that he has compromised the matter and the compromise deed is Ex.CX which is signed by him as well as Nath Singh and witnesses. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine. Original compromise (Annexure A-1) is taken on record. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 855 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 855 of 2011 -4- 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.” As per judgment Parambir Singh Gill versus Malkiat Kaur RCR (Criminal) 2010(1) 256, out of seven accused, complainant entered into compromise with one accused and proceedings qua that one accused only quashed by High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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) and Parambir Singh Gill versus Malkiat Kaur (supra), FIR No.118 dated 02.9.2010 under Sections 165,511,458,148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Criminal Misc. No. M- 855 of 2011 -5- Sangrur, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. April 26, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE