Crl. Misc.No. M-35748 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-35748 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.05.2011 Mahinder Singh and others ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint No.626-1 dated 16.07.2003 under Sections 452, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Ferozepur, and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.07.2003, Jangir Singh (since deceased) had filed the above said complaint against the petitioners on the allegation that the petitioners have caused injuries by tress passing while staking their claim on the flour mill and saw mill. However, during the pendency of the said complaint, Jangir Singh alias Ujaggar Singh s/o Jhanda Singh has died and after his death his son Bachan Singh (respondent No. 2) was permitted to pursue the said complaint by the learned trial Court. However, a compromise has also been effected between the parties. As per compromise/affidavit, the complainant does not want to further proceed in the above said complaint and has no objection if the above said FIR is quashed against the petitioners. Crl. Misc.No. M-35748 of 2010 (O&M) -2- In compliance of order dated 18.01.2011, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Fazilka has sent the report. As per report, statement of all the parties were recorded stating therein that with the intervention of respectables of the area, they were entered into a compromise with their own free will and without any sort of pressure and coercion. They have further stated that the compromise is aimed at maintaining peace and harmony and for the welfare of both the parties. 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-35748 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 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 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 Crl. Misc.No. M-35748 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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), complaint No.626-1 dated 16.07.2003 under Sections 452, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Ferozepur, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 13, 2011 G.Arora