Crl. Misc. No. M-24421 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-24421 of 2010 Date of decision:- 28.3.2011 Vishal and another ...Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and another ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 29 dated 08.07.2010 registered under Sections 452, 324, 323, 380, 148, 149 of IPC, at Police Station City Canal Colony, Bathinda, Distt Bathinda (Annexure P 1) and all subsequent proceedings arising out therefrom, on the basis of affidavits (Annexures P2, P3 and P4). In the reply filed by Assistant Superintendent of Police (City II Traffic), Bathinda, it is admitted that the occurrence resulted in the matrimonial dispute between Vipan Kumar, brother of respondent No. 2 and Suman, sister-in-law of respondent NO. 2. Respondent No. 2 is the complainant. He has submitted an affidavit dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure R1) duly attested by Notary Public, Bathinda, wherein he has admitted that the compromise has been effected between the parties. Since they are all relatives with each other, they wanted to live peacefully and do not want to proceed against each other as per compromise dated 30.07.2010. Crl. Misc. No. M-24421 of 2010 -2- Inadvertently, the name of the complainant-Sunny could not be entered therein. He has no objection if the proceedings are cancelled in the above mentioned. FIR. After going through the entire case, this Court is of the view that the dispute had arisen due to matrimonial problem between two families, which has been amicably settled now in a just manner. 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 com promise. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-24421 of 2010 -3- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-24421 of 2010 -4- 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. 29 dated 08.07.2010 registered under Sections 452, 324, 323, 380, 148, 149 of IPC, at Police Station City Canal Colony, Bathinda, Distt Bathinda (Annexure P1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 28, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE