Criminal Misc. No. M-14677 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-14677 of 2011 Date of decision:-03.6.2011 Amrik Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No.56 dated 18.5.2010 under Sections 376,452,366,511 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 3(25)/27(1)/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Amritsar on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-1). The FIR was registered on the statement of complainant-Surjit Kaur on the allegations that Amrik Singh son of Ranjit Singh 5-6 months ago took her on his motor-cycle on the pretext of paying the homage and instead of visiting Gurudwara for paying homage, he took her to Theka Colony in a white coloured kothi, there Kuldeep Singh son of Ranjit Singh and Kuldeep Singh Aulakh son of Tehal Singh were also present and they forcibly raped upon the complainant and threatened her on the gun point to keep the mouth shut. Thereafter, they Criminal Misc. No. M-14677 of 2011 -2- usually used to commit rape upon her. When the parents of complainant got her engagement for marrying her, then all the said accused persons started threatening her on her mobile phone and tried to convince her to get marriage with Amrik Singh accused. When she refused, then all the accused persons came to her house armed with kirpan on their motorcycle and tried to forcibly took her with them. Upon this her uncle Hoshiar Singh, her father Beant Singh and her mother Jasbir Kaur tried to oppose them. Then the accused persons gave kirpan blow to her uncle which hit on the wrist of her left hand and all the accused caused injuries to her uncle with their respective weapons. On raising alarm, the accused persons fled away on their motor-cycle alongwith their weapons. In this background, the FIR was registered. Respondent No.2 puts in appearance and tendered her affidavit and has been identified by her counsel. As per her affidavit, she has compromised the matter with the accused persons as per her own sweet will. She is now married and does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings with regard to the FIR in question and has no objection if the FIR is quashed. After registration of FIR, complainant got married. The parents of complainant were against this marriage. Petitioner No.2- Kuldip Singh is the brother of petitioner No.1 and is presently member Panchayat and political rivalry with Prem Singh, who was ex-sarpanch. Petitioner No.2 was earlier with Prem Singh but in January 2010 joined the group of Sujinder Singh @ Lally and due to this political rivalry Prem Singh with the help of parents of the complainants got lodged the present FIR involving the petitioners as accused. Both the petitioners and complainant belong to the same village and with the intervention of respectable they have sorted out the differences by way of this compromise. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-14677 of 2011 -3- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-14677 of 2011 -4- 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-14677 of 2011 -5- 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.56 dated 18.5.2010 under Sections 376,452,366,511 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 3(25)/27(1)/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Amritsar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. June 3, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE