IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.29889-M of 2009 Date of Decision:28.9.2010 Kirpal Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Tejinder Singh Khera, Advocate for respondent N.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of Complaint No.75/5 of 8.7.2000 under Sections 304/324/323/452/506/120-B/34 IPC P.S. Ghoman pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Gurdaspur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The complaint in question was filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners alleging that on account of the beatings given by the accused persons, her husband had died. However, the matter is stated to have been compromised. Compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure P- 3. Affidavits (Annexure P-4 and P-5) of respondent No.2 and Sukhdev Singh (complainant's witness) authenticating the compromise have also been placed on record. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued. Today i.e. Crl. M. No.29889-M of 2009 -2- 28.9.2010, respondent No.2 is present in person along with his counsel and filed her fresh affidavit authenticating the compromise. Her separate statement is recorded. As per her statement, she is the only legal heir of deceased Kunan Singh and she he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. No doubt Sections 304 IPC has been attributed to the petitioners but the main allegations in the complaint were levelled against accused No.8 to 10 which reads as under: “ The said Kunan Singh who was got injured by the hands of the accused persons 1 to 7 alongwith complainant and Sukhdev Singh and Karnail Singh came to the police post Udhanwal to lodge the complainant but instead of lodging of complaint, the accused No.8, 9 and 10 who were present in the police post Udhanwal, i.e. accused No.8 Karamjit Singh, who is SHO P.S. Ghoman and accused No.9 Karamjit Singh Incharge, police post Udhanwal alongwith accused No.10 caught the said Kunan Singh and throw him on the earth and tied his legs in a moulg and gave him severe beatings and tortured him by un-natural methods. The said Kunan Singh could not bear the beatings of the accused persons and was died on 19.6.99.” However, accused No.8 to 10 were not summoned by the Court below. Moreover, a cancellation report was filed in the FIR. The present complaint is filed thereafter. As per the post mortem report dated 20.6.1999, which has been placed on record, it was also opined by the Doctor that the cause of death was a result of Cardiorespiratory failure due to tubercular lesions. Thus, Section 304 IPC in any case is not made out against the present petitioners. Moreover, the matter has also been Crl. M. No.29889-M of 2009 -3- compromised. Each case has to be dealt in the peculiar facts of the case. In view of these facts, there is no impediment in accepting the compromise. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:- “ The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- “ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they Crl. M. No.29889-M of 2009 -4- are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Taking into account that the cancellation report was filed in the FIR, the cause of death is stated to be a result of Cardiorespiratory failure due to tubercular lesions, particularly the fact that compromise has been effected between the parties vide compromise deed Annexure P-3 in the private complaint filed by respondent No.2, affidavits of respondent No.2 and complainant's witness authenticating the compromise and the statement of respondent No.2 stating before the Court that she has no objection if the impugned complaint is quashed, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Complaint No.75/5 of 8.7.2000 under Sections 304/324/323/452/506/120-B/34 IPC P.S. Ghoman pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Gurdaspur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the peculiar facts of the present case. 28.9.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE