Criminal Misc. No. M-24435 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-24435 of 2010 Date of decision:-25.4.2011 Pargat Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. H.S. Gurnam, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.26 dated 18.2.2005 under Sections 452,380,435,325,506,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, on 17.2.2005 at about 6.30 PM petitioner came at the shop of complainant Rajinderpal (deceased) on his Zen car alongwith a tempo having 10-15 persons armed with weapons and after entering in the shop of complainant they started beating to him and picked up karyana material alongwith cash about Rs.15,000/- and other necessary papers. In this background, FIR was registered. During the pending proceedings, compromise has been effected between the parties. Affidavits of respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been placed on Criminal Misc. No. M-24435 of 2010 -2- record, in which it is stated that an oral compromise was effected between Rajinderpal (deceased) during his life time with petitioner. Now, the son of the complainant has compromised the matter and decided to settle the dispute. The parties have agreed to make statement before the Court that they do not want to pursue the said FIR. Affidavits of Raman Kumar son of Rajinderpal and Bina Rani wife of Rajinderpal have been placed on record. In compliance of order dated 2.2.2011, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 8.3.2011 Raman Deep and Veena Rani appeared before the trial Court and recorded their statements to the effect that they have entered into compromise with accused Pargat Singh . They do not want to proceed with the FIR in question and has no objection if the same is quashed. Statement of accused Pargat Singh was also recorded on the same day to the effect that he has compromised the matter with Raman Deep and Veena Rani. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-24435 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-24435 of 2010 -4- 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.26 dated 18.2.2005 under Sections 452,380,435,325,506,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. April 25, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE