Crl. Misc.No. M-8823 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-8823 of 2011 Date of decision : 21.04.2011 Suman and others ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Ms. Deepika Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.7 dated 19.01.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 306/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 who is the brother of the deceased Banno and author of the F.I.R in question has got registered the above said F.I.R against the petitioners on suspicion and due to some mis-understanding. As per F.I.R, on 07.09.2010 when respondent No. 2 along with his brother and nephew (Bhanja) and Ali Hussain were going to meet their sister in Village Kadowal. On seeing them, she started weeping loudly and said that it was better to die than to live this life. She has stated that petitioners harass her a lot and beat her and give threats of life and the sister of Crl. Misc.No. M-8823 of 2011 -2- her husband Suma also instigated them after coming from Barian. She has further stated to them that if they will not stop them from harassing her, she will die after consuming poison substance. Thererafter, complainant along with his brother returned to their village. On 13.9.2010, the complainant came to know that her sister has died. Then complainant along with his brother, nephew Ali Hussain and other relatives reached to village Kadowal where they saw their sister Banno was lying dead on the bed. In the above background, the F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. Now respondent No. 2 has cleared all his mis- understandings against the petitioners and realizing that the petitioners are not at all responsible for the death of sister of respondent no. 2. So respondent No. 2 has entered into compromise with the petitioners with the interventions of respectable persons from both the sides. The F.I.R is at the stage of investigation and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested by the police and presently they are confined in District Jail, Hoshiarpur As per the compromise Annexure P2, the complainant has stated that due to some misunderstanding, he got registered the above said F.I.R against the accused and now he came to know the truth and realized that the accused are innocent and therefore, with the interventions of respectable persons from both the sides, the parties have entered into compromise and now complainant do not further want to proceed with the present case. The have further stated that they will not raise any claim against each other in any Court with regard to the above said F.I.R. In future also, no party will file any civil or criminal case against each other. The original compromise is also taken on record as Annexure A-1. Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed his Crl. Misc.No. M-8823 of 2011 -3- reply by way of short affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioner vide compromise dated 19.02.2011 and now respondent No. 2 has cleared all his mis- understandings against the petitioners and realizing that the petitioners are not at all responsible for the death of sister of respondent no. 2. Now, he is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioners. Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by his counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-2), both the parties have settled their dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise/affidavit (Annexure P-2) annexed with the petition. On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that offence under Section 306 is non compoundable offence and disputed the fact that parties have entered into compromise in the above said F.I.R and has further stated that F.I.R is not liable to be quahsed. This Court in a case of Pinki and others vs. State of Punjab and others in Crl. Misc. No. M-25662 of 2010 decided on 22.12.2010 had examined in a case under Section 306 in which compromise has been effected. This was a case in which complainant-husband was alleged to have have been blackmailed by the petitioners Pinki (petitioner No. 1) in collusion with Rahul (petitioner No. 3) and Sham Lal @ Shammi (petitioner No. 2) to do wrong acts with petitioner No. 1. It is because of this torture by the above said persons that her husband was constrained to take poisonous substance and he died. F.I.R was registered and during investigation, the complainant gave an affidavit Crl. Misc.No. M-8823 of 2011 -4- that she had got registered the FIR against the petitioners and it was further stated by her that when her husband died, she was under a shock and therefore, got registered the FIR against the petitioners as she had lost control of her temper besides there was some misunderstanding. In fact, the petitioners were not responsible for the death of her husband and they were not guilty. She had further stated that she does not want to further proceed with the case. No challan had been presented in the case. The F.I.R was quashed. In Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab and another, 2008(1) RCR (Crl.) 1034 (P&H), the case was registered under Section 306 and 511 IPC, it was held that once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the prosecution case and the FIR was quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment in a case of Chand Singh and others v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR Crl. 123 in which the case has been registered under Section 306 of IPC wherein complainant had filed an affidavit that he has filed the F.I.R under some wrong impression and misunderstanding, that the matter has been compromised at the intervention of some respectables, and that the misunderstanding has been removed. It has further been stated that he does not want to proceed with the case further. In view of the affidavit, F.I.R was quashed. 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:- Crl. Misc.No. M-8823 of 2011 -5- “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. 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, Crl. Misc.No. M-8823 of 2011 -6- 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. 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 afore-cited judgments Crl. Misc.No. M-8823 of 2011 -7- rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, FIR No.7 dated 19.01.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 306/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. Petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 21, 2011 G.Arora