Crl. Misc. No. M-4147 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4147 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision :4.3.2011 Jarnail Singh Sahota .......... petitioner Versus State of Punjab& another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 68 dated 16.10.1989, under Sections 279, 337, 427 IPC registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this FIR was result of accident, who had taken place on 16.10.1989. MACT case had been filed for compensation, which was decided on 1.6.1991 (Annexure P-4). The matter was disposed of in view of the payment Crl. Misc. No. M-4147 of 2011 -2- of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation, which was received by Malkiat Singh. Thereafter the records of the proceedings pending in the FIR were burnt. The learned State counsel on instructions from HC Davinder Singh states that the petitioner had been declared as proclaimed offender in the year 1991. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the compromise between the parties dated 30.5.1991, whereby they agreed on payment of Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant shall withdraw the proceedings pending against the petitioner. A statement was made by the complainant on 1.6.1991 (Annexure P-3) and vide order dated 1.6.1991, the claim petition was disposed of as per the settlement arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a report from the Record Room, in which it has been mentioned that on 16.6.1998, major fire took place in Judicial Record Room, resulting where, huge record was destroyed. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit of the complainant dated 29.1.2011 in the Court. As per this affidavit the matter has been compromised between the parties and deponent has already received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as full and final settlement of their claim. MACT claim petition filed against Jarnail Singh and others has been compromised on 13.5.1991. He has no objection,if the FIR in question registered against the petitioner is Crl. Misc. No. M-4147 of 2011 -3- quashed. After going through the facts of the case, the petitioner as per Annexure P-5 copy of the passport, petitioner is a Canadian national. He was declared as proclaimed offender in the year 1991.Since matter stood compromised before the MACT on 1.6.1991 after the complainant had received compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending in the FIR qua the petitioner. After going through the facts a fair compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure or coercion. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-4147 of 2011 -4- 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 amity 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-4147 of 2011 -5- litigation.” The ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference 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) R.C.R. (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 disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved – Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. Crl. Misc. No. M-4147 of 2011 -6- 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.” Keeping in view the affidavit filed and the contents of the petition, this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 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 Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 68 dated 16.10.1989, under Sections 279, 337, 427 IPC registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is quashed on the basis of compromise. The petition stands disposed of. 4.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE