Criminal Misc. No. M-35020 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-35020 of 2009 Date of decision:-31.5.2011 Manjinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Vivek S. Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No.137 dated 16.11.2009 under Sections 380,452,323 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala on the basis of compromise. The FIR in question was registered on the statement of Gurpreet Singh that on 2.11.2009 at about 8.30 accused Manjinder Singh, Binder Singh and their mother Mohinder Kaur came to the house of complainant and were having wooden rod (sota) and caused injuries to the complainant. In this background, the FIR was registered. Petitioner No.1 and 3 are step brothers of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2 is step mother of respondent No.2-complainant. They are closely related to each other and the FIR was registered on account of misunderstanding, which has not been resolved. Criminal Misc. No. M-35020 of 2009 -2- In compliance of order dated 22.2.2011 status report has been received from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. It has been stated in the status report that on 16.5.2011 statement of complainant has been recorded that they have compromised the matter. One accused namely Manjinder Singh was not present as his whereabouts are now known. Statements of other accused namely Binder Singh and Mohinder Kaur have been recorded. As per statements made by the parties compromise is held to be genuine. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-35020 of 2009 -3- 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 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- Criminal Misc. No. M-35020 of 2009 -4- 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 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.137 dated 16.11.2009 under Sections 380,452,323 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. May 31, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE