Criminal Misc. No. M- 38036 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 38036 of 2010 Date of decision:- 23.2.2011 Gurmail Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 7 dated 16.1.2007 under Sections 279,337 and 338 IPC registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. The FIR in question was got registered by the complainant Balwinder Kaur stating that she is resident of House No.12/146, near Little Angel School, Mullanpur, Ludhiana and work as a house wife. On 15.1.2007 she went to meet her sister at Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana. Son of her sister namely Bhupinder Singh came to drop her at the lights of Rajguru Nagar, Ferozepur road, for getting bus for return to her home Mullanpur. At about 5.30 PM as she was waiting at the footpath for the bus, then a bus came from Ludhiana side, which was driven very fast and negligently, hit her while she was standing on the Criminal Misc. No. M- 38036 of 2010 -2- footpath. Front tyre of the bus went upon her right feet. Thereafter son of her sister got her admitted at DMC Hospital Ludhiana, where she is undergoing treatment and she came to know later that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration No. PB-11-L-7905, is Gurmail Singh son of Nachhattar Singh, resident of District Barnala. After registration of FIR, challan was presented and now the matter is fixed for evidence. At this stage parties have entered into compromise. Affidavit of respondent No.2-Balwinder Kaur/complainant has been filed in Court, same is taken on record. Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by his counsel. As per the affidavit, complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner and she has no objection if the FIR in question alongwith all consequential proceedings are quashed qua petitioner. 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- 38036 of 2010 -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.” Criminal Misc. No. M- 38036 of 2010 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 38036 of 2010 -5- 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. 7 dated 16.1.2007 under Sections 279,337 and 338 IPC registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. February 23, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE