Crl. Misc. No. M-1853 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1853 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision :21.3.2011 Paramjit Singh @ Jawala .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr.Navjot Singh, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 257 dated 23.8.2008 under Sections 392, 427, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station City Kapurthala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (annexure P-2). As per the contents of the FIR, complainant / respondent No.2 on 23.8.2008 at about 6 PM, while driving bus No. PB-09-H- 9185, loaded with passengers reached about Kapurthala Chuharwal near Chungi then Devi Party and Jwala Chuharwal Party, both Crl. Misc. No. M-1853 of 2011 -2- parties have six-seven persons, armed with swords/ kirpans and Datars were quarreling. Jwala of Jwala Party who were armed with naked sword and hit the front mirror of the bus, resultantly the mirror broke down. Jwala Party after entering into the bus with their respective weapons asked the conductor, Gurmeet Singh to hand over his money bag otherwise they will kill him and while going away they took the money bag in which three thousand and two rupees were kept. During the pendency of the trial, complainant has entered into compromise with Paramjit Singh @ Jawala son of Tarsem Lal . In compliance of the order dated 20.01.2011, passed by this Court, a report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala has been received, which reads as under :- “The statement of complainant Lakhwinder Singh son of Sohan Singh, accused Paramjit Singh @ Jawala son of Tarsem Lal, Tarsem Lal son of Kartar Chand, father of accused Paramjit Singh @ Jawala, SI-Mohinder Singh, No. 690, JR, Special Investigation Staff, Kapurthala, Dara Ram, Municipal Councillor, Ward No.6, Kapurthala and Kuldip Singh, Member Panchayat of village Bhandal Bet, District Kapurthala, in this case bearing FIR No. 257 dated 23.08.2008 U/ss 392/427/148/149 IPC, P.S. City, Kapurthala, have been recorded, whereby, the complainant submitted that he has entered into compromise with the accused. He does not want to proceed against the accused in criminal proceedings against him in this Crl. Misc. No. M-1853 of 2011 -3- case. Accused Paramjit Singh @ Jawala also suffered the statement that compromise has been effected between the complainant and him. Tarsem Lal son of Kartar Chand, father of accused Paramjit Singh @ Jawala, SI- Mohinder Singh, No. 690 JR, Special Investigation Staff, Kapurthala, Dara Ram, Municipal Councillor, Ward No.6, Kapurthala and Kuldip Singh, Member Panchayat of village Bhandal Bet, District Kapurthala, have also got recorded their statements and corroborated the version of the complainant and the accused regarding compromise having been effected between the complainant and the accused. Thus, under these circumstances compromise between complainant Lakhwinder Singh and accused Paramjit Singh @ Jawala in this case seems to be genuine. The copy of statement of complainant Lakhwinder Singh is Annexure- A. The copy of statement of accused Paramjit Singh @ Jawala is Annexure-B. The copy of statement of Tarsem Lal son of Kartar Chand, father of accused Paramjit Singh @ Jawala is Annexure-C. The copy of statement of SI-Mohinder Singh, No. 690, JR, Special Investigation Staff, Kapurthala is Annexure-D. The copy of statement of Dara Ram, Municipal Councillor, Ward No.6, Kapurthala is Annexure-E and the copy of statement of Kuldip Singh, Member Panchayat of village Bhadal Bet, District Kapurthala is Annexure-F.” As per the report, the statement of complainant Crl. Misc. No. M-1853 of 2011 -4- Lakhwinder Singh son of Sohan, Singh, accused Paramjit Singh @ Jawala son of Tarsem Singh, Tarsem Lal son of Kartar Chand, father of accused Paramjit Singh @ Jawala had been recorded. As per the statements recorded, the complainant has amicably settled the dispute and they have entered into compromise. They have no objection if the FIR in question is 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 :- “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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1853 of 2011 -5- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1853 of 2011 -6- 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. 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they a re, cannot afford.” This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 256, has been pleased to lay down as under :- Crl. Misc. No. M-1853 of 2011 -7- “Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3 and 4- Non Compoundable offence- of the seven accused, complainant entering into compromise with one accused- Proceedings qua one accused only quashed by High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur (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. 257 dated 23.8.2008 under Sections 392, 427, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station City Kapurthala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise is quashed qua the petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. 21.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE