CRR No. 2518 of 2006 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 2518 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.2.2011 Chetram .......... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for complainant / respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. CRM No. 56712 of 2010 This application under Section 320 read with Section under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence and allowing the parties to compromise the matter in pending Criminal Revision No. 2518 of 2006. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the convict has to undergo simple imprisonment for one CRR No. 2518 of 2006 -2- month. The convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 326 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months vide order dated 10.11.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal. Appeal against this judgment has been declined vide judgment dated 18.11.2006 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The petitioner has preferred the present revision petition, which has been admitted for regular hearing by this Court. During the pendency of the revision vide order dated 22.3.2007 the sentence of the petitioner was ordered to remain suspended. With the intervention of the respectables of the society both the parties have mutually settled the matter and compromise ha s been arrived at on 16.10.2010. As per this compromise, the complainant has decided to withdraw the proceedings against the petitioner. Annexures P-1 & P- 2 are taken on record. Criminal miscellaneous is allowed. CRR No. 2518 of 2006 Without going into the merits of the case the undisputed fact that the petitioner has been facing the criminal proceedings for the last more than 13 years. The alleged occurrence took place on 9.7.1997. Learned Addl. A.G., Haryana has filed the custody CRR No. 2518 of 2006 -3- certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which has been issued by the Deputy Superintendent District Jail, Gurgaon, which is taken on record as Annexure 'A'. As per this custody certificate the petitioner has undergone 4 months and 7 days w.e.f. 18.11.2006 to 24.3.2007. Thereafter he was released on bail as per the orders of this Court on 24.3.2007. Mr. Amit Kohar, learned counsel for the complainant / respondent No.2 has appeared and identified the complainant, who was present in the Court. He stated that the contents of the compromise annexed with the revision petition are correct and the complainant is a signatory to the said compromise. This compromise has been effected without any pressure and coercion. It is stated in the compromise that the complainant will be bound by the terms of the compromise. The affidavit Annexure P-2 of the complainant Mukesh son of Babu Lal has been attached with the criminal revision is duly attested. The parties are related to each other and the complainant does not want to pursue the proceedings against the petitioner. Since the parties are related to each other this Court is of the view that the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable but in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 429 even non-compoundable offence can be compromised. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench CRR No. 2518 of 2006 -4- 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 CRR No. 2518 of 2006 -5- 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 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 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 CRR No. 2518 of 2006 -6- 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) R.C.R. (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 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.” In view of the above compromise and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone four months and seven days in the Jail and 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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), this criminal revision is disposed of by observing that the CRR No. 2518 of 2006 -7- compromise is fair and voluntary and the petitioner has already undergone four months and seven days, nothing survives for adjudication. The petition stands disposed of. 28.2.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE