Criminal Misc. No. M-2423 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-2423 of 2011 Date of decision:- 29.3.2011 Jagraj Singh @ Raja ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. B.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.197 dated 18.10.2001 under Sections 326 and 324 IPC, registered at Police Station Dharmkot, District Moga (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). As per FIR, complainant had purchased 1-½ acres of land from Jagraj Singh @ Raja (petitioner) and on 18.10.2001 at about 8.30 complainant visited to his fields and irrigated the same for sowing fodder (Barseen). When the complainant was sitting in his field, petitioner came and called abusive language to him by saying that you are cultivating 2 kanals more than the land, which was purchased. He was in drunked condition and after picking spade, lying near there and attached on complainant from sharp side and caused injuries. In this background, the FIR was registered. During the pendency of trial, parties have entered into compromise Criminal Misc. No. M-2423 of 2011 -2- and are praying for quashing of criminal proceedings. As per compromise, the complainant does not wish to proceed further with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. After going through the FIR, it transpires that the injuries had been caused on the index finger of the right hand of petitioner and on little finger of the left hand. The cause of enmity was purchase of 1-½ acres of land and there was suspicion that the complainant was cultivating two kanals more. The dispute is between family members and as per the compromise they have agreed to live in peace. In compliance of order dated 25.1.2011 status report has been received from Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga. As per the status report, the complainant and petitioner appeared before the court on 24.2.2011 to get their statements recorded. Jeet Singh-complainant stated that Jagraj Singh accused is his real nephew and they have compromised the matter with the intervention of panchayat and relatives. They are now living peacefully and they have no grudge against each other and he is having no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the petitioner. Statement of Jagraj Singh also recorded to the effect that complainant Jeet Singh is real uncle and due to intervention of panchayat and other respectable of the village they have compromised the matter and are living peacefully. The compromise is without any pressure or coercion in any manner. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-2423 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-2423 of 2011 -4- 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 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.197 dated 18.10.2001 under Sections 326 and 324 IPC, registered at Police Station Criminal Misc. No. M-2423 of 2011 -5- Dharmkot, District Moga, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. March 29, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE