Crl. Misc. No. M-25091 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-25091 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision :4.3.2011 Brij Gupta & others .......... petitioners Versus State of Haryana & another ...... Respondents Crl. Misc. No. M-15103 of 2010 (O&M) Amit @ Vicky .......... petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 434 dated 6.11.2004 under Section 148, 149, 307, 325, 326, 324, 323, 506, 507, 120-B IPC registered at police Crl. Misc. No. M-25091 of 2010 -2- station Civil Linies, Karnal (Annexure P-1) and complaint case No. 79/09 dated 5.8.2006 under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Lines, Karnal (Annexure P-3) got filed by respondent No.2/ complainant and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. The allegations in the FIR by respondent No.2 are that the petitioners have given him beating on account of business rivalry as complainant / respondent No.2 was an employee of a rival business house. After investigation, the police submitted cancellation report but on re-investigation, the police submitted a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. under Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC on 2.1.2006 against three persons namely Bhupinder Singh @ Laddi i.e. petitioner No.2, Malkhan Singh-petitioner No.4 and Subhash Dattan- petitioner No.5, whereas the other petitioners were found innocent along with Amit @ Vickey. During the proceedings before the learned trial Court a private complaint was filed and petitioners were summoned to face trial in the criminal complaint No. 79/09, as well as Amit @ Vickey on 5.8.2006 under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. Thereafter the learned trial Court vide order dated 6.1.2010 (Annexure P-4) summoned all the petitioners along with Amit @ Vickey under Sections 307, 323, 326, 506, 149 IPC. Thereafter, both the cases were committed to the Court of Sessions Judge. After framing of charge, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Crl. Misc. No. M-25091 of 2010 -3- A criminal miscellaneous No. M-15103 of 2010 has been filed for quashing of summoning order dated 6.1.2010 (Annexure P- 2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal in complaint case No. 79/09 titled as Pawan Kumar vs. Brij Gupta and others pending in the Court of ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal along with complaint No. 79/09. In which trial Court proceedings were stayed. It is also pending along with this petition. As per complaint, there existed a business rivalry between the accused Mr. Yogesh Gupta. The respondent Pawan Kumar was working with Yogesh Gupta and all the accused wanted to teach him a lesson for working with Mr. Yogesh Gupta. On the fateful day i.e. 26.10.2004, the respondent / complainant was threatened that either he should resign from the service of Mr. Yogesh or ready to face consequences. After raising lalkara, all the accused attacked the complainant / respondent. Arvind Chopra and Bhupider Singh @ Laddi gave a gandasi blow on his finger of left hand. Jitender Arora gave a Danda blow on his left hand. Malkhan Singh gave a Danda blow on his left arm. Subhash gave a Danda blow on his fore-arm. Darshan Singh gave kicks and blows in his abdomen and Brij Gupta hit the blows of the Butt (back portion of the D.B.B.L. Gun). In this process, serious injuries were caused to him. Thereafter, a short was fired upon the complainant by Brij Gupta, which did not hit the complainant / respondent. Dr. Iqbal Singh appeared as CW-5 and proved the copy of report Ex. CW5/A, in which he found un-displaced fracture proximal phalanx of left little finger. Crl. Misc. No. M-25091 of 2010 -4- Dr. Balwan Singh, Medical Officer appeared as CW-4 and proved the MLR Ex. PW4/A. The nature of injuries, which has been suffered by the petitioners as simple and the cause of quarrel is due to business rivalry. All the injuries suffered by the petitioners are simple in nature and this Court is of the view that the offence under Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC is made out and no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of Pawan Kumar-respondent No.2. He is also present in person in Court and has been duly identified by his counsel. As per the affidavit the dispute has been settled between the parties with the intervention of respectables. The dispute was primarily of civil nature regarding their business. He has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-25091 of 2010 -5- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-25091 of 2010 -6- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-25091 of 2010 -7- 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 a re, cannot afford.” Keeping in view the status report, this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 434 dated 6.11.2004 under Section 148, 149, 307, 325, 326, 324, 323, 506, 507, 120-B IPC registered at police station Civil Linies, Karnal (Annexure P-1) and complaint case No. 79/09 dated 5.8.2006 under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Lines, Karnal (Annexure P-3) got filed by respondent No.2/ complainant and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is quashed on the basis of compromise. The petition stands disposed of. 4.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE