Crl. Misc. No. M-3202 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3202 of 2010 Date of decision : 21.04.2011 Raj Singh alias Raju and another ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Suresh Kumar Aneja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder Singh 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 No227 dated 07.07.2003 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 324, 323, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Fazilka and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P-3), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 got lodged the above said F.I.R against one Rattan Singh, since deceased Surjan Singh as well as present petitioners on the allegations that on 05.07.2003, complainant's son Sukhjinder had gone to the shop of Rattan Singh s/o Surjan Singh in the village for cutting his hair who in return spoke badly as a result of which, there was exchange of some hot words between them but the matter was got compromised but on the next date, when respondent No. 2 and her son Sukhjinder Singh were returning back to their house after Crl. Misc. No. M-3202 of 2010 -2- paying fits to Peer baba of Burjawali Karni. At about 6 P.M., Rattan Singh, Joginder armed with Gandasi, Raj Singh were standing there in the way and Rattan Singh and Raj Singh raised lalkara and Joginder Singh caused gandasi blow on the head of Sukhjinder Singh which hit him on the left side of his head from the back side and he fall down and raised raula and the accused ran from the race of occurrence with their weapons. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. Thereafter, Rattan Singh (since deceased) filed a criminal complainant under Sections 307, 323, 324, 364, 148, 149 against respondent No. 2 and others. In the said complaint, the accused including respondent No. 2 were ordered to be summoned under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC. The proceedings are going on before the learned trial Court. Rattan Singh had already expired. The petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 had no previous enmity and the said incident took place due to some mis-understanding. However, with the passage of time, better sense prevailed upon both the parties and hence due to intervention of Gram Panchayat, respectable members of village, friends and relatives of both the parties, the parties have compromised the matter (Annexure P3). The original compromise filed in the Court today and the same is taken on record as Annexure A-1. As per the compromise, with the intervention of Gram Panchayat, respectable members of village, friends and relatives of both the parties, the parties have compromised the matter. Both the parties have now no grouse or grievances against each others and respondent No. 2 do not want to prosecute the petitioners and she has no objection if the F.I.R as well as subsequent proceedings are quashed against the petitioners. In compliance of order dated 02.02.2011, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) Crl. Misc. No. M-3202 of 2010 -3- Fazilka has sent the status report. As per the report, the parties had appeared in the Court on 25.02.2011 along with their respective counsels. It is further submitted that complainant (i.e mother of the injured Sukhjinder Singh) and Sukhjinder Singh alias Sukhjinder Singh son of Jarnail Singh, the injured were duly identified by Sh. Karamjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate in the Court vide his separate statement. On the other hand, the accused i.e Joginder Simgh son of Mikha Singh and Raj Singh son of Gurdial Singh appeared in the Court and were duly identified by Sh. Sanjeev Kamboj, Advocate. The statement of both the parties were recorded on 25.02.2011, in order to ascertain the validity or otherwise of the compromise dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P3). The complainant/injured has stated that the present case was registered on her statement against the accused at Police Station Sadar Fazilka regarding injuries caused to her son Sukhjinder Singh and with the intervention of Gram Panchayat, respectable members of village, friends and relatives of both the parties, the parties have compromised the matter (Annexure P3). Now complainant does not want to proceed further with the present case as per compromise. She has further stated that she has effected compromise for the betterment of her family and brotherhood without any pressure with her freewill. The injured Sukhjinder Singh alias Sukhjinder Singh has also made similar statement admitting the correctness of the compromise (Annexure P3) and he has stated that he has effected compromise with the accused Joginder Singh etc. for the betterment of his family and brotherhood without any pressure with her freewill and that he is agreed with the compromise earlier filed before this Court and he does not want to proceed further with the present case. On the other hand, both the accused persons along with their counsel have admitted the correctness of Crl. Misc. No. M-3202 of 2010 -4- compromise. After considering the statement made by both the parties, the Court is satisfied with the compromise entered between the parties. So, the compromise is held to be voluntarily, valid and legal. 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-3202 of 2010 -5- 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-3202 of 2010 -6- 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 No227 dated 07.07.2003 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 324, 323, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Fazilka is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 21, 2011 G.Arora