Criminal Misc. No. M- 34418 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 34418 of 2010 Date of decision:- 17.03.2011 Binder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Veneet Soni, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.14 dated 13.3.2005 under Sections 323,506,148 and 149 IPC and subsequently added Section 325 IPC, registered at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar Mohali (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). As per contents of FIR, on 13.3.2005 at about 9 AM when complainant-Swaran Singh, Sarpanch alongwith members of Panchayat were getting cleaning conducted on daily basis by labourers namely Piara Singh, Harnek Singh and Bahadur Singh, then Binder Singh son of Gurdev Singh, Gurmail Singh son of Gurdev Singh, Baldev Singh son of Bachan Singh, Surjit Criminal Misc. No. M- 34418 of 2010 -2- Singh son of Gurdev Singh, Gurjit Singh and Jasvir Singh alias Kheera sons of Ram Singh and Bhag Singh armed with Dandas, Gandassi etc. arrived at the spot and threatened to complainant and other persons present there to stop the cleaning and after raising exhortations they started beating them with their respective weapons. In this background, the present FIR was registered against the petitioners. During pendency of investigations, the compromise was effected between the parties. In compliance of order dated 23.11.2010, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mohali has sent a report verifying the contents of the compromise. As per this report, on 23.12.2010 both the parties i.e. complainant Swaran Singh alongwith injured/eye witnesses Harnek Singh and Piara Singh as well as accused Binder Singh, Gurmail Singh, Surjit Singh, Gurjit Singh, Jasvir Singh and Bhag Singh appeared before the Court and have got recorded their separate statements regarding compromise. As per statements, they have compromised the matter with their own will, without any fear, without any undue influence and pressure. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 34418 of 2010 -3- 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, 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 34418 of 2010 -4- 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 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.14 dated 13.3.2005 under Sections 323,506,148 and 149 IPC and subsequently added Section 325 IPC, registered at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar Mohali. is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua Criminal Misc. No. M- 34418 of 2010 -5- petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 17, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE