Criminal Misc. No. M- 9303 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 9303 of 2011 Date of decision:-30.3.2011 Jatinder Pal Singh @ Kanti and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 10 dated 30.1.2011 under Sections 323,324,452,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. As per FIR, complainant-Mohan Singh had come from foreign country Abu Dhabi 2½ months earlier. Accused No.1 Jatinder Pal Singh @ Kanti used to go on his vehicle with obscene songs at high pitch through the street of complainant. He was asked not to do it number of times but he did not stop it. On 26.1.2011 when complainant alongwith his father Raghubir Singh and other family members were present in the house then about 7.15 PM, accused -petitioners came in a Zen Car bearing No. PB-08-AJ-3131 with his stereo on high volume and the complainant gave signal to them to stop it. After that they Criminal Misc. No. M- 9303 of 2011 -2- stopped their car and started abusing him. Thereafter, two motor-cycles with two persons each on motorcycles, amongst them one was Sunny's brother Mani and three unknown persons started arguing with the complainant. Then all the accused with their respective weapons after breaking the door of the house of complainant entered in it and caused multiple injuries to complainant and his father. After raising lalkara by the neighbours, the accused ran away on their vehicles. In this background, the present FIR was registered against the accused-petitioners. During pendency of the investigation, a compromise has been effected between the parties (Annexure P-2) and the respondents do not wish to proceed the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Affidavit of respondent Nos.2 and 3 are Annexurs P-3 and P-4. As per the affidavits, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. As per affidavit, respondent No.2-Mohan Singh does not want to proceed with the FIR and has no objection if it is quashed. Today joint affidavit of respondent Nos.2 and 3 also filed. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are present in the Court and have been duly identified by their counsel. As per their joint affidavit, the matter has been compromised and they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua petitioners. Counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Surender Pal Singh also informs the Court that the matter has been duly compromised between the parties. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 9303 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 9303 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 9303 of 2011 -5- Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 10 dated 30.1.2011 under Sections 323,324,452,148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. March 30, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE