Crl. Misc. No. M-1332 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1332 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 04.05.2011 Bachu Lal @ Rimpal ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate, for Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, A.A.G Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. M.K. Bhatnagar, Advocate for complainant/respondent No. 3 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.78 dated 23.04.2008 under Sections 279/304-A of IPC, later on added Section 427, registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P1) and its subsequent proceedings including challan and trial, which is pending in the Court of learned JMIC, Ludhiana, on the basis of compromise Brief facts of the case are that the incident had taken place which resulted in the death of one girl namely Harpreet Kaur (daughter of respondent No. 3) . On 23.04.2008, when the complainant and his daugter were going on their cycles, they saw one TATA 704 vehicle bearing No. PB-13-C-9004 coming from the opposite side, which was being driven by the petitioner at a very high speed and negligently and without blowing any Crl. Misc. No. M-1332 of 2011 (O&M) -2- horn, loaded with bricks came and struck the cycle of the daughter of the complainant. The complainant raised hue and cry on which lot of people gathered there but the daughter of the complainant died on the spot. In the above background, the F.I.R was registered against the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the trial, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectable persons and amicably settled the dispute between them. As per the compromise, the matter has been compromised and Rs.35000/- are being paid over and above the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which has been duly received by the complainant. It has further been decided that they will now file quash petition in this Court and both the parties will not raise any objection for the purpose of quashing. Compromise deed is Annexure P-2. Original compromise is also taken on record as Annexure A-1 In compliance of order dated 21.03.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner has given certified copy of MACT judgment, which is taken on record as Annexure A-2. As per this judgment, respondent No. 3 has been awarded compensation of Rs.2.25 lacs on account of death of his daughter. In compliance of order dated 17.01.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and get their statement recorded. Status report has been received in this regard. As per report of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, the parties i.e mother and father of the deceased and the accused appeared before the trial Court on 22.02.2011 and their statements were recorded. In view of the statements, so suffered by the parties, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana is of the view that the parties have arrived at a volunteer compromise. Crl. Misc. No. M-1332 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 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 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, Crl. Misc. No. M-1332 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “1. No useful purpose would be served in Crl. Misc. No. M-1332 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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.78 dated 23.04.2008 under Sections 279/304-A of IPC, later on added Section 427, registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. In view of the status report, this Court is of the view that respondent No. 3 has been duly compensated by the petitioners, therefore, the petitions stand disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 04, 2011 G.Arora