Crl. Misc. No. M-421 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-421 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 12.5.2011 Dilbag Singh ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG Punjab. **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.27 dated 20.1.2009 under Section 279, 304-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that Baljit Singh-complainant has registered the FIR to the effect that he is working in Rohan Rajdeep Tollways Ltd. Company located on the Gumtala Byepass to Mahan Byepass, Amritsar where the road is being constructed and the work of the labour is being done by migrant labour. He left the labour at work in the vehicle of the company and came back in the evening. On 19.01.2009 at about 6.30 p.m. About 1 ½ kms behind Mahan Byepass he alighted labourer Kapil Passwan. On the bus from the side of Gumtala Bye-pass Road one fast driven Canter Tipper bearing No. PB-08R-2764 which was being driven Crl. Misc. No. M-421 of 2011(O&M) 2 by a Hindu Youngman in a negligent manner struck his vehicle against Kapil Passwan due to which Kapil suffered serious injuries and has got admitted in Amandeep Hospital for treatment where he died during treatment. The driver of the offending vehicle ran away from the spot. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioner. However, during the pendency of investigation, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectables and decided to end the matter and to live in peace and harmony. Now the complainant does not want to proceed with the above mentioned F.I.R. After registration of the FIR the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the wife of the deceased made a statement before the learned MACT on 10.03.2009 that she has compromised the matter with the petitioner qua the death of her husband. She has received ` 1 lac in lumpsum and has also made a prayer to withdraw the claim petition in view of the compromise. Statements of the accused parties have also been recorded in which they had admitted that Raniya Devi has received ` 1 lac out of which she was directed to retain ` 50,000/- with her qua her own claim and she was directed to deposit ` 50,000/- in the name of minor claimant Nos. 2 to 5 in equal share in the shape of FDRs till their attaining the age of majority. The FDRs be made in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Queens Road, Amritsar. She was further directed to produce the photocopies of FDRs on 14.03.2009 in Lok Adalat. Vide order dated 14.03.2009, she has produced the photocopies of FDRs and the claim petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In compliance of the order dated 06.01.2011, a report from Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar has been received. As per Crl. Misc. No. M-421 of 2011(O&M) 3 report, statements of both the parties have been recorded. Copies of the statements of the parties as well as copy of the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar dated 11.2.2011 have also been sent alongwith the report. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the trial is likely to result into acquittal and continuous proceedings against the petitioner will be wastage of time. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka & Another 2009(1) RCR(Criminal) 501 wherein after conviction the parties had entered into compromise and granted permission to compound the offence. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-421 of 2011(O&M) 4 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.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Puttaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka & Another (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.27 dated 20.1.2009 under Section 279, 304-A of IPC, Crl. Misc. No. M-421 of 2011(O&M) 5 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Amritsar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 12, 2011 Savita