Crl. Misc. No. M-10640 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-10640 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.04.2011 Paramjit Singh alias Pamma .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. B.P.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Guninder Singh Brar, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent. Mr. Satpal Jain, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.360 dated 22.05.2001 under Sections 326/323/42/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Samana, District Patiala (Annexure P1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom , on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), entered between the parties and the order dated 27.04.2004 passed by the SDJM Samana Brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. was registered against the Jaswinder Singh, Bhajan Singh, Kala, Gurdeep Singh, Bawa Singh, Pamma Fauji Tyre Wala and Hardev Singh, all residents of village Fatehpur Police Station Samana on the allegations that on 21.05.2001 the complainant had to purchase wheat from Fatehpur and he went there by his truck bearing No. PJV 9117 and Sukhjinder Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Crl. Misc. No. M-10640 of 2011(O&M) -2- Jarnail Singh were also along with the complainant. When the truck of the complainant reached near the floor mill of village Fatehpur, a brick was thrown on the truck, so he stopped the truck. Then he saw Jaswinder Singh, Bhajan Singh, Kala, Gurdeep Singh, Bawa Singh, Pamma Fauji and Hardev Singh armed with weapons started beating the complainant. Firstly, Gurdeep Singh gave a kirpan blow on the complainant body and complainant raised raula. Then Gurdeep Singh again gave a kirpan blow on his left knee and made another blow on the complainant left elbow. Bawa Singh gave blows on the complainant chest and back with lathi . When the complainant's companion tried to rescue the complainant, they were also given beatings. Thereafter, an F.I.R was registered against the present petitioner and others. As a counter blast, on the statement of Bawa Singh-co accused, a cross case was registered against the complainant and others stating that complainant Baldev Singh and others gave injuries to Bawa Singh and his son Gurdeep Singh. Petitioner is involved in this case falsely and he is not involved in the offence. After presentation of the challan, charges were framed against the accused. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, both the parties arrived at a compromise with the intervention of respectable persons and amicably settled the dispute between them and two judgments of acquittal have been passed in the cross case. Copies of the judgments of acquittal are annexed as Annexure P3 and P4 During the pendency of this trial, Jaswinder Singh-co accused was declared as Proclaimed offender. Thereafter, he surrendered before the trial Court and on the basis of evidence already led, he was acquitted vide Annexure P5. Vide Annexure P6, accused Bawa Singh and Paramjit Singh Crl. Misc. No. M-10640 of 2011(O&M) -3- were declared as Proclaimed offenders. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of the judgments passed by the trial Court (Annexure P3 and P4), all the accused were acquitted by the trial Court. So, it would be a futile exercise to proceed with the present case against the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab where three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal were facing trial under Section 302 IPC, and subsequently they had absconded and declared proclaimed offenders. In the trial, accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were convicted by the trial Court. Appeal of accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were allowed by observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case. While examining the case of the three accused, who had been declared proclaimed offenders, this Court, while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the proceedings against the absconding accused on the ground that no useful purpose will be served if they are produced and ordered to face the trial. In the present case, respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all the proceedings pending against the petitioner and others. Compromise deed is Annexure P-2. Respondent No. 2 has also filed his reply in which he has stated that after registration of the F.I.R, the compromise has been effected between the parties on 06.10.2010 and he has no objection if the F.IR. is quashed against the petitioners. Respondent No.2 appeared through his counsel and admitted the factum of compromise stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and now he is having no objection if the FIR in question Crl. Misc. No. M-10640 of 2011(O&M) -4- with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed . Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has been 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 respondent No. 2 does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise (Annexure P-2) annexed with the petition. Counsel for the State has informed this Court that all the accused in the present F.I.R and in cross case have been acquitted by the trial Court except the petitioner as he had not appeared in the Court In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to accept the compromise and to quash the F.I.R 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-10640 of 2011(O&M) -5- 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-10640 of 2011(O&M) -6- 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-10640 of 2011(O&M) -7- Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) and applying the ration of Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab (supra), FIR No.360 dated 22.05.2001 under Sections 326/323/42/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Samana, District Patiala (Annexure P1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 28, 2011 G.Arora